The Second Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. At the same time, Obama said that his recent promise to take executive action on guns due to Congress’s inaction is “entirely consistent with the Second Amendment.” Breitbart reported:
Barack Obama insists his planned executive actions on gun control will be “entirely consistent” with the Constitution – even as organizations defending the Second Amendment have warned him not to act on his own.
After meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch and law enforcement members of his administration, Obama explained he wanted a “very clear understanding” of what he was trying to do with more gun control.
“I’m also confident that the recommendations that are being made by my team here are ones that are entirely consistent with the Second Amendment and people’s lawful right to bear arms,” he said.
He made an emotional defense for his upcoming actions, promising that they would “potentially save lives in this country” and “spare families the pain and the extraordinary loss that they’ve suffered” as a result of violence in the United States.
He also added that he wanted his actions to make sure “the wrong people” didn’t have guns “for the wrong reasons.”
During the White House press briefing, Press Secretary Josh Earnest admitted that the president’s actions would likely be challenged in court by political opponents but suggested that they were the right thing to do.
“The kind of arguments that we’ll be able to mobilize in the court of law are ones that I’m confident will be powerful and persuasive,” he said. “Ultimately, a judge will have to decide. But we should not be distracted however, from the fact that the reason the president is taking these actions is because Congress has utterly failed in their responsibility to do so.”
You can’t infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms without violating the Second Amendment. Besides that, executive orders themselves aren’t even Constitutional.
The usual justification for them is found in Sections 1 and 3 of Article II of the Constitution, which outlines the executive branch’s purpose and functions. Section 1, Clause 1 reads:
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows…
It then goes on to discuss how the President is to be elected. The “Take Care Clause” occurs in Section 3 of Article II:
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
This is kind of like the “Welfare Clause.” Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the federal government the authority to create welfare programs at the wasteful expense of its citizenry. But since the Constitution uses the word “welfare,” liberals use it to justify massive government programs.
Likewise, the Constitutional excerpts above do not provide justification in allowing the President to issue “executive orders.” In order for the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” it has to be a law in the first place. The President can’t make laws. Remember, that’s supposed to be Congress’s job. So, if things don’t go the President’s way, he has no choice but to wait on Congress, who may or may not allow him to do what he wants. It’s that way by design. If all the President has to do is issue executive orders when he doesn’t get his way, then what’s the point of having a Congress at all? I’m sure Obama asks the same question.