Category Archives: Constitution

Is this Adam Lanza’s doppelgänger?

. . . or the undead Lanza himself?

Max Maisel

That notion isn’t so far-fetched given the fact that:

  1. The American public, to this day, have not been shown the death certificates of Lanza or his 27 victims, although like birth and marriage certificates, death certificates are considered to be public records. After Newtown clerk Debbie Aurelia refused to issue Sandy Hook victims’ death certificates, despite repeated FOIA requests by the AP and other media, the Connecticut State legislature actually passed a new law (HB 5733 – An Act Concerning Access to a Child’s Death Certificate) to restrict the public’s access to birth certificates “when the disclosure of the death certificate is likely to cause undue hardship for the family of the child.’’
  2. Genealogy websites had Adam Lanza’s Social Security Death Index as December 13, 2012 — a day BEFORE the alleged massacre. Only when the date was discovered by FOTM and other bloggers did the genealogy websites change his date-of-death Dec. 14, 2012.

Jesse Gosselin reports for WTNH that search teams in New York state are looking for Max Maisel, a 21-year-old student from Fairfield, Connecticut, Max Maisel, who was reported missing Sunday, Feb. 22, 2015. Maisel is attending the Rochester Institute of Technology.

According to the R.I.T. University News, Maisel was last seen Sunday leaving the Perkins Green Apartment Complex on campus. His car was located Monday near a pier on the Genesee River, where officials said Maisel and his family spent summers for several years.

“We don’t know where Max is and that’s hard to deal with,” Max’s father, Ivan Maisel, a senior writer for ESPN, said in a press conference at R.I.T. on Thursday afternoon. “We love you and we miss you,” said his mother, Meg Murray. Max’s parents are pleading with the public to come forward with any information that could help them locate their son.

To compare, here’s a pic of Max Masiel (r) next to one of a teenage Adam Lanza (l). Note that the American public were never shown a pic of the adult Lanza. Lanza was 20 years old when on the morning of December 12, 2012, he allegedly first shot dead his mother, Nancy, at home, then drove to the Sandy Hook Elementary School where, in less than 5 minutes, he shot dead 20 children and 6 adults.

Adam Lanza; Max Maisel

To me, the eyes, lips, and chins of Lanza and Masiel are different: Masiel has fuller lips, different-shaped eyes that slant down at their outer edges, and no horizontal indentation in his chin. But, from what I can see of the two men’s ears, they seem to be the same.

What do you think?

Meanwhile, just as Sandy Hook Elementary School was razed to the ground and the demolition workers sworn to confidentiality, allegedly because of asbestos contamination, Adam Lanza’s home will also be torn down.

On January 21, 2015, the Newtown Legislative Council approved a proposal by the board of selectmen to raze the 3,100-square-foot home on Yogananda Street and keep the land as open space. First Selectwoman Pat Llodra (Newtown doesn’t have a mayor) said she expects the Lanza house will be razed once winter is over. The 2-acre property was given to the town in December by a bank that acquired it from Ryan Lanza, Adam’s older brother.

It should be noted that the homes of Elin Patricia Llodra and Newtown’s other two selectmen, William Rodgers and James Gaston Sr., all share a sale date of 12/25/2009 and sale price of $0. (See “The strange purchase date and price of Sandy Hook homes”)

H/t FOTM silent reader Ann

See also:

UPDATE:

Investigative researcher Martha Trowbridge of the Terrible Truth blog alerted me to a demon face under Max Maisel’s right ear.

Max Maisel1 Yikes!

~Éowyn

Gun Control! Obama to ban bullets by executive action

The Piece of Sh*t occupying the White House is running amuck.

Already, he has issued more executive orders and memoranda than any U.S. president in history, the recent two amnesty executive memos being especially egregious examples. See:

Now that the Sandy Hook hoax failed to achieve its purpose of nation-wide gun control, Obama is switching his tactics by employing his executive power to ban 5.56 mm bullets used in AR-15 rifles — the most popular rifle in America.

guns-make-us-less-safe

Paul Bedard reports for The Washington Examiner, Feb. 26, 2015:

It’s starting.

As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives this month revealed that it is proposing to put the ban on 5.56 mm ammo on a fast track, immediately driving up the price of the bullets and prompting retailers, including the huge outdoors company Cabela’s, to urge sportsmen to urge Congress to stop the president.

Wednesday night, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, stepped in with a critical letter to the bureau demanding it explain the surprise and abrupt bullet ban. The letter is shown below.

The National Rifle Association, which is working with Goodlatte to gather co-signers, told Secrets that 30 House members have already co-signed the letter and Goodlatte and the NRA are hoping to get a total of 100 fast.

“The Obama administration was unable to ban America’s most popular sporting rifle through the legislative process, so now it’s trying to ban commonly owned and used ammunition through regulation,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA, the group’s policy and lobby shop. “The NRA and our tens of millions of supporters across the country will fight to stop President Obama’s latest attack on our Second Amendment freedoms.”

At issue is so-called “armor-piercing” ammunition, an exemption for those bullets mostly used for sport by AR-15 owners, and the recent popularity of pistol-style ARs that use the ammo.

The inexpensive 5.56 M885 ammo, commonly called green tips, have been exempt for years, as have higher-caliber ammunition that also easily pierces the type of soft armor worn by police, because it’s mostly used by target shooters, not criminals. The agency proposes to reclassify it as armor-piercing and not exempt.

But now BATFE says that since the bullets can be used in semi-automatic handguns they pose a threat to police and must be banned from production, sale and use. But, as Goodlatte noted, the agency offered no proof.

Federal agencies will still be allowed to buy the ammo.

“This round is amongst the most commonly used in the most popular rifle design in America, the AR-15. Millions upon millions of M855 rounds have been sold and used in the U.S., yet ATF has not even alleged — much less offered evidence — that even one such round has ever been fired from a handgun at a police officer,” said Goodlatte’s letter.

Even some police don’t buy the administration’s claim. “Criminals aren’t going to go out and buy a $1,000 AR pistol,” Brent Ball, owner of 417 Guns in Springfield, Mo., and a 17-year veteran police officer told the Springfield News-Leader. “As a police officer I’m not worried about AR pistols because you can see them. It’s the small gun in a guy’s hand you can’t see that kills you.”

Many see the bullet ban as an assault on the AR-15 and Obama’s back-door bid to end production and sale.

“We are concerned,” said Justin Anderson with Hyatt Gun Shop in Charlotte, N.C., one of the nation’s top sellers of AR-15 style rifles. “Frankly, we’re always concerned when the government uses back-door methods to impose quasi-gun control.”

Groups like the National Shooting Sports Foundation suggest that under BATFE’s new rule, other calibers like popular deer hunting .308 bullets could be banned because they also are used in AR-15s, some of which can be turned into pistol-style guns. “This will have a detrimental effect on hunting nationwide,” said the group.

not for hunting

For all the posts FOTM has published on the Sandy Hook hoax, go here.

~Éowyn

Obama bypasses Congress, again, with new Special Envoy for Sodomites

Christians are being slaughtered across the world, especially in the Middle East — Christianity’s birthplace — where Christianity is on the verge of going extinct.

The Obama Administration has no envoy to Christians but the POS has seen fit to create out of thin air a new position in the State Department — a first-ever Special Envoy for Sodomites.

Just another of his middle-finger salutes to Congress and the U.S. Constitution. (See “Obama tells Congress he’ll decide what’s constitutional“)

Barack Obama

Robert R. Reilly writes for MercatorNet that on Monday, February 23, Secretary of State John Kerry proclaimed, “I could not be more proud to announce Randy Berry as the first-ever Special Envoy for the Human Rights of LGBT Persons.

Randy Berry

Randy Berry

 

Until his new appointment, Berry was the U.S. consul general in the Netherlands.

Two Democrats, Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass) and Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif) had introduced legislation in the last Congress to create such a position, but the bill died. The bill was reintroduced in the new Congress, with zero chances of passage.

And so, true to his F-you declaration a year ago that “I’ll act with or without Congress,” Obama simply created the position by executive fiat. This has the added advantage of not requiring Congressional confirmation of the openly-gay Randy Berry in the new position. It simply becomes an executive branch appointment.

But what exactly is Special Envoy Randy Berry supposed to do “for the Human Rights of LGBT Persons” in foreign countries?

The State Department said Berry would push to end laws in dozens of countries around the world that criminalize same-sex relationships. As Kerry put it, “Too often, in too many countries, LGBT persons are threatened, jailed, and prosecuted because of who they are or who [sic] they love.”

Robert Reilly took a look at more than 40 of the laws that purportedly persecute people because of who they are or whom they love. Here is a sample.

  • Uzbekistan: “voluntary sexual intercourse between two male individuals”
  • Yemen: “Homosexuality between men is defined as penetration into the anus”
  • Sudan: “Any man who inserts his penis or its equivalent into a woman’s or a man’s anus or permitted another man to insert his penis or its equivalent in his anus is said to have committed Sodomy”
  • Brunei: “Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman, or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years…”
  • Myanmar: “Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals shall be punished…”
  • Mauritius: “Any person who is guilty of the crime of sodomy or bestiality shall be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding 5 years.”
  • Kuwait: “Consensual intercourse between men of full age (from the age of 21) shall be punishable with a term of imprisonment of up to seven years.”
  • Kenya: “Any male person who, whether in public or private, commits any act of gross indecency with another male person, or procures another male person to commit any act of gross indecency with him, or attempts to procure the commission of any such act by any male person with himself or with another male person, whether in public or private, is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for five years.”

Contrary to what John Kerry said, not one of the laws Reilly looked at punishes anyone because of who they are, but only because of what they do. A homosexual cannot be arrested because he is a homosexual, but only if he sodomizes someone – just as an alcoholic cannot be arrested for being an alcoholic, but only if he is drunk and disorderly in public, or is driving drunk. In other words, these laws reflect the rule of law, not the kind of tyrannies embodied in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. The issue of whom they love is also irrelevant to these laws, but only, once again what they do together. It is a matter of whether the expression of “love” is appropriate to the nature of the relationship. These laws judge sodomy as inappropriate to any relationship. The principal issue here, then, is the act of sodomy itself, and whether or why the United States should be supporting it in its foreign policy.

John Kerry is very firm that it should, because:

“Defending and promoting the human rights of LGBT persons is at the core of our commitment to advancing human rights globally — the heart and conscience of our diplomacy. That’s why we’re working to overturn laws that criminalize consensual same-sex conduct in countries around the world.”

In other words, the Obama Administration is proclaiming to the world that the United States of America “defends” and “promotes” SODOMY. Not just that, but the defense of SODOMY is the core — “the heart and conscience” — of U.S. diplomacy.

When did the American people decide that sodomy is up there with the inalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence or in the Bill of Rights?

As recently as 1986, only 29 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bowers v. Hardwick that:

“Sodomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights. In 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, all but 5 of the 37 States in the Union had criminal sodomy laws. In fact, until 1961, all 50 states outlawed sodomy, and today, 24 states and the District of Columbia continue to provide criminal penalties for sodomy performed in private in between consenting adults.”

Why did these laws exist for so long? Because our inalienable rights rest firmly upon “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” and sodomy is clearly contrary to those Laws, as it violates the very ends of man’s sexual powers, which are unitive and procreative. Sodomy is an act unfit for either of those ends. Therefore, one cannot claim a natural right to do something that is unnatural. Or as Abraham Lincoln said, one “cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong.”

Reilly explains that, as he stated in his book, Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior is Changing Everything:

But that, of course, is exactly what the rationalization for homosexual behaviour accomplishes…. It transforms wrong into right. For that rationalization to hold, however, everyone must share in it. The rationalization of sodomy requires its universalization. Everyone must agree that the unreal is the real [and evil is good]…. We are in the phase of its domestic enforcement now, and Secretary Kerry is preparing for its global enforcement in our foreign-policy, as proudly announced by the LGBT flags flying on the masts of our embassies overseas last June, just under the American flag. The State Department has become the instrument for the global universalization of the rationalization for sodomy.

The problem with this should be self-evident. The promotion of “gay” rights must come at the expense of the promotion of human rights because the two are immiscible. One is founded on the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and the other on moral relativism, which eviscerates the very idea of natural rights and the natural law on which they are based. If you have one, you cannot have the other. You have your rights by virtue of being a human being, and not by anything else – not ethnicity, not religion, not race, not tribe, not sexual orientation.

The Obama Administration, by its aggressive rationalization and promotion of sodomy across the world, is undermining the very notion of natural law on which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were founded.

See also:

~Éowyn

Proper Gun Control: Pharmacist shoots would-be robber

 

second amendment3

WVMetroNews.com: (Pinch, W. Va.) Investigators with the Kanawha County Sheriff’s Department say a pharmacist who shot a man who later died will not be charged with a crime.

Detectives said surveillance video at Good’s Family Pharmacy in Pinch shows the masked man, Terry Gillenwater, 25, pulled out a gun after he entered the pharmacy at about 9:45 Wednesday morning and pointed it at workers. The pharmacist, who has a legal conceal carry permit, pulled out his gun and shot the man, who later died at a Charleston hospital.

“The guy was walking around with a mask on and my pharmacist joked, ‘He must be here to rob us,’” owner Patrick Good told MetroNews. “Whenever he said that the guy pulled a gun.”

Good said Gillenwater was probably after prescription pills, but couldn’t confirm that because he didn’t have time to state his demands.

“The guy pulled the gun and jumped in front of a customer in line and was pointing the gun at the employees,” said Good. “That’s when my guy pulled his gun and shot him three times.”

The pharmacist on duty had a .45 pistol. The first shot hit the robber in the chest and he went down, but he raised the gun again. The employee then fired a second and third shot. One of those hit the suspect’s gun in his hand and the other shot hit him in the abdomen.

Workers at the pharmacy attempted life-saving measures on the man. Nobody in the pharmacy was injured. “He was here for the pills,” said Good. “We’re a real small, small store here.”

Good said he had no problem with his employees carrying firearms with a concealed carry permit while on the job.

The information from the investigation will be turned over to the Kanawha County Prosecutor’s Office.

Score one for the Second Amendment!

DCG

Gun rights groups await judge’s ruling on California’s ‘microstamping’ law

second amendment3

Fox News: California’s gun laws are among the nation’s strictest, but a looming decision in a federal lawsuit could effectively ban handguns altogether in the Golden State, according to plaintiffs who want a judge to toss out a state law requiring all new handguns to be equipped with technology that “stamps” each shell casing with a traceable mark.

The problem with the “microstamping” law, which was signed into law by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2007 but only took effect in 2013, is that it relies on an unworkable technology, according to gun manufacturers and attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation. If guns without the technology can’t be sold in California, and gun manufacturers can’t implement the technology, the law is, for practical purposes, a handgun ban that violates the Second Amendment, goes the argument.

“This is about the state trying to eliminate the handgun market,” said Alan Gura, the lead attorney in Pena v. Lindley, filed on behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation against the Chief of the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms. “The evidence submitted by the manufacturers shows this is science fiction and there is not a practical way to implement the law. At some point gun sales will cease,” he added.

Judge Mueller

Judge Mueller

California Eastern District Judge Kimberly Mueller is considering Gura’s request for her to enjoin the state from imposing a ban on the sale of new handguns based on lack of compliance with the microstamping law while the case, first filed in 2009, until the technological challenges are resolved. Although Mueller has not said when she will issue a decision, Second Amendment Foundation officials believe it could come any day.

Since the law took effect in 2013, no manufacturer has made a new firearm that complies with the requirement. Two major manufacturers, Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger & Co., announced last year they would stop selling new firearms in the California market, and blamed the microstamping law. The technology has been demonstrated, but gunmakers say requirements that each new model, or even modification, must be re-tested for compliance makes the entire scheme unworkable.

Mike Feuer

Mike Feuer

The microstamping bill was introduced by the state lawmaker and current Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer (Democrat), who insists the technology is not only workable, it will make it much easier to solve gun crimes.

“When we know who bought the crime gun, that’s a significant lead for law enforcement,” said Feuer co-founder of Prosecutors Against Gun Violence. If the law were expanded throughout the country, Feuer believes the technology could help solve the approximately 45 percent of gun crimes in the country that go unsolved.

Dr. Dallas Stout, president of the California Brady Chapters, also endorsed the law after pushing for its passage, saying it will “provide law enforcement with an important tool to track down armed criminals and help solve gun crimes.”

Both ballistic identification and microstamping systems help law enforcement investigate gun crimes because cartridge cases are much more likely to be recovered at the scene of a shooting than the gun itself, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence maintained.

However, the theory that the law will actually help solve crimes remains untested. A spokesperson for Long Beach’s Police Forensic Sciences Services Division said the department has no such statistics because there are no firearms that actually use the technology yet. And even law enforcement authorities have wavered on whether it will work: The California Police Chiefs Association, which originally supported the legislation in 2007, changed its position in 2009.

“Publicly available, peer-reviewed studies conducted by independent research organizations conclude that the technology does not function reliably and that criminals can remove the markings easily in mere seconds,” the California Police Chiefs Association said in a letter to then state Attorney General and current Gov. Jerry Brown.

Feuer blames the gun lobby for the change in position, saying it “has engaged in an outrageous, last ditch effort to try and thwart a law broadly supported by law enforcement.”

Without action by Mueller, there will be no way for a California resident to buy a new firearm until the case is ultimately decided, perhaps by the U.S. Supreme Court, said Gene Hoffman, co-founder of Calguns Foundation. “Any new semi-automatic gun that we want to carry for self defense or purchase as collectors will not be available to us at all,” Hoffman said.

If new guns can’t be purchased, older ones that are grandfathered in under the microstamping law will cost more, said John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. That takes square aim at the Second Amendment rights of the poor, he said.

“The problem is the people who need guns the most and benefit the most from owning gun, poor individuals in high crime areas, are priced out of the market,” Lott said. “Who do they think they are disarming as a result of the law? It is minorities in poor crime areas, not some wealthy guy who can afford to purchase the firearms at a higher cost.”

stoopid

DCG

Federal judge stops Obama’s executive amnesty for illegals

king

To get around accusations that he bypasses Congress by issuing too many executive orders (195 at last count), Obama slyly resorts to the lesser-known presidential or executive memorandum instead, which has the same force of law as executive orders. In fact, analysis shows that Obama has issued more executive memos, numbering 198, than any U.S. president in history.

Unlike executive orders, executive memoranda are not numbered or indexed and therefore, until recently, difficult to quantify. As a result, executive memos have gone largely unexamined, despite the fact they often are as significant to everyday Americans than executive orders. (See “Obama has issued more executive orders than any U.S. president in history“)

In Obama’s case, some of the most significant actions of his presidency have come not by executive order but by presidential memoranda, notably his two executive memos last November which confer effective amnesty by refusing to deport as many as five million people who are in the U.S. illegally. Those memos are:

  1. An executive memo that expand a program that protects young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. This is set to start taking effect tomorrow.
  2. An executive memo, to begin on May 19, which extends deportation protections to parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country illegally for some years.

The problem, as noted by Wikipedia, is there is no constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits executive actions like executive orders, executive or presidential memoranda, presidential determinations, and presidential notices. Instead, presidents look to the term “executive power” in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which refers to the title of President as the executive, as well as Article II, Section 3, Clause 5’s instruction that the President “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” else he faces impeachment. Most executive orders therefore use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President’s sworn duties and powers as the nation’s chief executive.

All of which means that the legitimacy of executive orders, executive memos, and other executive actions is open to interpretation and dispute.

In the case of Obama’s two executive memoranda conferring effective amnesty on illegal aliens in the United States, their constitutionality is being challenged in the courts, no thanks to the supine members of Congress who actually are charged by the U.S. Constitution to make laws.

Judge Arthur J. Schwab

Judge Arthur J. Schwab

Last December, federal judge Arthur J. Schwab of the Western District of Pennsylvania, used a deportation decision to probe the constitutionality of Obama’s amnesty memorandum and declared it “unconstitutional.” Judge Schwab wrote:

President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore, is unconstitutional.

Judge Schwab’s full decision here.

Judge Andrew Hanen

Judge Andrew Hanen

Yesterday, Feb. 16, 2015, another federal judge, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, took it one important step further by temporarily blocking Obama’s amnesty so as to give a coalition of 26 states time to pursue a lawsuit that aims to permanently stop the orders. (My Way News)

Judge Hanen wrote in a memorandum accompanying his order that the lawsuit should go forward and that without a preliminary injunction the states will “suffer irreparable harm in this case” because “The genie would be impossible to put back into the bottle” once Obama’s amnesty memoranda are put into effect. The presence of millions of illegals aliens would then be sanctioned, which would be a “virtually irreversible” action.

The coalition of states, led by Texas and made up of mostly conservative states in the South and Midwest, argues that Obama has violated the “Take Care Clause” of the U.S. Constitution, which they say limits the scope of presidential power. They also say the order will force increased investment in law enforcement, health care and education.

In their request for the injunction, the coalition said it was necessary because it would be “difficult or impossible to undo the President’s lawlessness after the Defendants start granting applications for deferred action.”

Greg Abbott

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott

In a statement late yesterday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton called Judge Hanen’s decision a “victory for the rule of law in America.” Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who as the state’s former attorney general had led the state into the lawsuit, said Hanen’s decision “rightly stops the President’s overreach in its tracks.”

Andrew Hanen, who’s been on the federal court since 2002 after being nominated by President George W. Bush, regularly handles border cases but wasn’t known for being outspoken on immigration until a 2013 case. In an order in that case, Hanen suggested the Homeland Security Department should be arresting parents living in the U.S. illegally who induce their children to cross the border illegally.

Congressional Republicans have vowed to block Obama’s actions by cutting off Homeland Security Department spending for the program. Earlier this year, the Republican-controlled House passed a $39.7 billion spending bill to fund the department through the end of the budget year, but attached language to undo Obama’s executive actions. The fate of that House-passed bill is unclear as Republicans in the Senate do not have the 60-vote majority needed to advance most legislation.

Among those supporting Obama’s executive order is a group of 12 mostly liberal states, including Washington, California, and the District of Columbia. They filed a motion with Hanen in support of Obama, arguing incredibly that the directives will substantially benefit states (!) and will further the public interest (!).

A group of law enforcement officials, including the Major Cities Chiefs Association and more than 20 police chiefs and sheriffs from across the country, also filed a motion in support of Obama’s executive amnesty. They argue that amnesty will improve public safety by encouraging cooperation between police and individuals with concerns about their immigration status.

In a statement early today, the Obama White House defended his amnesty memos as within the president’s legal authority, saying that the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress have said federal officials can set priorities in enforcing immigration laws: “The district court’s decision wrongly prevents these lawful, commonsense policies from taking effect and the Department of Justice has indicated that it will appeal that decision.”

The White House is appealing Judge Hanen’s ruling. The appeal will be heard by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

H/t FOTM’s MomOfIV and glenda

~Éowyn

Obama has issued more executive orders than any U.S. president in history

Obama signs Obamacare bill

Whenever conservatives object to the POS using Executive Orders to take unilateral action in disregard of Congress, his defenders inevitably trot out the fact that President George W. Bush had issued more Executive Orders than Obama. Indeed, as of Nov. 21, 2014, Obama has issued 194 Executive Orders, whereas George W. had signed 291 Executive Orders in the 8 years he was in office. (Wikipedia)

In so doing, the Left are merely repeating what Obama himself had said in a speech in Austin last July, “The truth is, even with all the actions I’ve taken this year, I’m issuing executive orders at the lowest rate in more than 100 years. So it’s not clear how it is that Republicans didn’t seem to mind when President Bush took more executive actions than I did.”

However, what Obama and his defenders conveniently leave out is this:

Obama, cunningly, also deploys another form of executive action known as the presidential or executive memorandum, and he has issued those memoranda more often than any other president in history.

There is no constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits either Executive Order or Executive Memorandum. Both are forms of executive orders (note the small e and o) or directives, and both have the full force of law. 

As Gregory Korte points out in a thoughtful and informative article in USA Today,  Dec. 17, 2014:

President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.

When these two forms of directives [executive orders and executive memos] are taken together, Obama is on track to take more high-level executive actions than any president since Harry Truman ….

Obama has issued executive orders to give federal employees the day after Christmas off, to impose economic sanctions and to determine how national secrets are classified. He’s used presidential memoranda to make policy on gun control, immigration and labor regulations. Tuesday, he used a memorandum to declare Bristol Bay, Alaska, off-limits to oil and gas exploration.

Like executive orders, presidential memoranda don’t require action by Congress. They have the same force of law as executive orders and often have consequences just as far-reaching. And some of the most significant actions of the Obama presidency have come not by executive order but by presidential memoranda.

Obama has made prolific use of memoranda despite his own claims that he’s used his executive power less than other presidents…. Obama has issued 195 executive orders as of Tuesday. Published alongside them in the Federal Register are 198 presidential memoranda — all of which carry the same legal force as executive orders….

Obama is not the first president to use memoranda to accomplish policy aims. But at this point in his presidency, he’s the first to use them more often than executive orders…even as he’s quietly used memoranda to signal policy changes to federal agencies….

While executive orders have become a kind of Washington shorthand for unilateral presidential action, presidential memoranda have gone largely unexamined. And yet memoranda are often as significant to everyday Americans than executive orders.

Executive Orders are numbered; Obama’s begin with #13489. Memoranda are not numbered, not indexed and, until recently, difficult to quantify.

Kenneth Lowande, a political science doctoral student at the University of Virginia, counted up memoranda published in the Code of Federal Regulations since 1945. In an article published in the December issue of Presidential Studies Quarterly, he found that memoranda appear to be replacing executive orders.

Indeed, many of Obama’s memoranda do the kinds of things previous presidents did by executive order. “If you look at some of the titles of memoranda recently, they do look like and mirror executive orders,” Lowande said. The difference may be one of political messaging in that an “executive order immediately evokes potentially damaging questions of ‘imperial overreach'” whereas memorandum sounds less threatening.

Another difference between Executive Orders and Executive Memoranda, ironically, is spelled out in an Executive Order. Executive Order 11030, signed by President Kennedy in 1962, says that an Executive Order must contain a “citation of authority,” saying what law it’s based on, but Executive Memoranda have no such requirement.

Whatever they’re called — whether executive order or executive memorandum or “presidential determination” or “presidential notice,” those executive actions are binding on future administrations unless explicitly revoked by a future president, according to legal opinion from the Justice Department.

The Office of Legal Counsel signs off on the legality of executive orders and memoranda. During the first year of Obama’s presidency, the Office of Legal Counsel asked Congress for a 14.5% budget increase, justifying its request in part by noting “the large number of executive orders and presidential memoranda that has been issued.”

Below are some examples of Obama’s executive memoranda:

• In his State of the Union Address in January 2014, Obama proposed a new retirement savings account for low-income workers called a MyRA. The next week, he issued a presidential memorandum to the Treasury Department instructing it to develop a pilot program.

• In April, Obama directed the Department of Labor to collect salary data from federal contractors and subcontractors to monitor whether they’re paying women and minorities fairly.

• In June, Obama told the Department of Education to allow certain borrowers to cap their student loan payments at 10% of income.

• Obama issued three presidential memoranda after the 2012 Sandy Hook school-shooting false flag:

  1. ordering federal law enforcement agencies to trace any firearm that’s part of a federal investigation;
  2. expanding the data available to the national background check system; and
  3. instructing federal agencies to conduct research into the causes and possible solutions to gun violence.

The most controversial Obama executive memoranda are his amnesty-to-illegals memos, which both congressional Republicans and many states say exceed his authority. Please see my post, “Federal judge stops Obama’s executive amnesty for illegals,” on the rulings of two federal judges on Obama’s amnesty executive memos.

~Éowyn