“In the United States, we do not have a king, but we do have a Constitution. We also have the Second Amendment, and I will fight tooth and nail to protect it.” With that pronouncement, Kentucky senator and presidential candidate Rand Paul announced that he’s introducing legislation that would, according to thehill.com, “decree any executive action on gun control that either infringes upon congressional authority or potentially violates the Second Amendment as ‘advisory only’ until legislation that supported the action is passed by Congress.” There’s only one problem with that . . .
Well, there are at least three. First, Congress has spent the last quarter century or so gradually ceding much of its power to the executive branch. That’s why the current POTUS thinks that all he really needs to get things done is a pen and a phone. Why wouldn’t he? When Obama’s issued executive orders that blatantly encroach on the legislative branch’s powers (revising ObamaCare’s provisions multiple times, as one example), they’ve done little or nothing about it.
Second, whatever merits this bill may have, should it pass both houses of Congress, it will surely be vetoed by the President. Even if Congress manages to muster the votes necessary to over-ride the veto, Obama will no doubt issue the orders anyway. See the first problem, above.
Third, the Congress can stamp its ineffectual little feet and hold its useless breath all it wants, but that wouldn’t stop the President from, for instance, enacting his own “assault weapons” ban by ordering the FBI to refuse to authorize background checks on all purchases of AR-15s and AK-47s. If, by some Lazarus-like miracle, the solons breathe new life into their testicular regions and stiffen their linguini-like spines enough to sue him over such an order, the case would no doubt drag out in the courts well past the time Obama finally vacates the office just over a year from now. What President Clinton would then do would be anyone’s guess.