Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
The GOP is going try to fight President Obama’s Executive Orders
By: Dennis SJan. 18th, 2013more from Dennis S
The Republican reaction to President Obama’s “gun control” speech is in. It took a few hours for the NRA memo to arrive, but once it did, right-wing House members, where any gun legislation will live or die, came forth with the same chorus; mental illness and the constitution. You’ll be hard pressed to find any of their number proposing anything to do with meaningful gun legislation. Ain’t happening.
Thanks to my local paper, I’ve become privy to South Carolina 4th District Congressman Trey Gowdy’s thoughts on the matter, all of which mirror his House colleagues I’m sure.
For Gowdy, it’s all about mental illness and the constitution. As for concerns about firearms and mayhem from the seriously mentally ill, those concerns are justified. Individuals suffering from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are a particular risk to commit violent acts if they’re off their meds. Their most likely victims would be family members. Federal figures put the number of the dangerously mentally unstable at well over 50% of the prison population. So, yes, a person with a serious mental illness calls for special attention.
When Gabby Giffords was shot 2 years ago, the Arizona mental health budget had just been cut by 40%. There have been similar deep cuts in many states, mostly in community mental health services by reducing the number of people served.
In the 1960′s states started to comply with a law called “The Community Mental Health Centers Act.” The primary intention was to shift care away from institutionalization and toward local treatment centers. Problem was many of those centers didn’t materialize and even when they did, those most in need didn’t bother to drop by. Now the heaviest emphasis is on outpatient services. Kaiser Family Foundation numbers reported in the Washington Post showed an inpatient population of the mentally ill at 42% in 1986 down to 19% in 2005 and it continues to fall. Mental health block grants have been cut and frozen by Congress over the last decade.
Prescription drugs are heavily relied upon, but in a non-institutionalized or residential setting, there are no guarantees that clients are taking them on a regular basis. Therein lies the problem. Certain mental conditions, non-medicated and exacerbated by booze and street drugs can turn a perfectly civil and stable person into a killing machine. So while Gowdy is correct, I’ve heard very little criticism from him on the subject of defunding programs. It’s instructive that Gowdy has repeatedly voted to repeal “Obamacare” which has a strong mental health and substance abuse component.
At this time, there just aren’t enough mental health professionals to meet the demand and when a troubled individual does scare up the courage to get help, it’s damn expensive. That’s why the extension of Medicaid, that many red states are in the process of rejecting, is so vital. The Journal of Psychiatry estimates that 1 in 6 low-income persons (below 133% of the poverty level) served by the extension, has a severe mental health disorder.
So it’s time for Republicans to get their Neanderthal state legislatures in order if they truly wish to ameliorate the mental health aspect of this terrible problem. A couple of points to ponder: the mentally ill are responsible for less than 10% of gun homicides and none of the recent mass murderers would had been judged mentally ill. Even had that been the case, 40% of gun sales are not subject to background checks.
So, we still have a 90% problem. The Republican reaction? With Gowdy as surrogate, they’re going after Obama’s Executive Orders for their constitutionality. I wonder if all of George W. Bush’s 216 Executive Orders were constitutional? Apparently there were no concerns from Republicans then. Obama is already at 168, readily understandable given an impossibly recalcitrant right-wing House. Unstated, but obvious, is that Republicans will try to go after the orders either though new evasive laws or through their network of conservative courts. Since no House attempts would pass the Senate, the courts are about to become overburdened with Executive Orders cases, both from DC and the various red states that will rush to pass opposing legislation that invites court scrutiny.
I’ve now read Obama’s Executive Orders. Not a word about semi-automatics or limitations on anything that goes boom. There are references to background checks but not as intrusive as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 2008. With FISA, authorities can snoop around your international email and wiretap your international phone calls without a warrant and you don’t have to be suspected of anything. Congress is so enamored with these powers that FISA was quietly re-upped (H.R. 5949) for another 5 years just before New Years. FISA is an extension of the massively unconstitutional Patriot Act, enacted in the immediate wake of 9/11. Constitutional protector Gowdy whose words say one thing and his actions quite another, voted yes on 5949. It’s a reminder that Republicans and some Democrats pick and choose their constitutional applications.
After being thwarted at the appellate level, the ACLU has a challenge before the Supreme Court in Amnesty et al. v. Clapper. The case was heard last October and the decision is pending.
In his Executive actions, the President dedicates several of the Orders to the logistics of making agency background checks more broadly available to states. Another order directs the ATF to provide guidance to gun dealers to run background checks for private sellers. The right will raise a bit of hell on that one.
Obama wants a safe and responsible gun ownership PR campaign. I thought that was what the NRA was for. He wants to review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes. LaPierre’s BP is going up. Order number 9 would issue a Presidential Memorandum requiring the feds to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations. Don’t states already do that in most cases? It takes the FBI forever to accomplish the simplest tasks for local law enforcement. Highly impractical.
A few more Orders; maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime; provide ‘incentives’ (are we talking money here?) for schools to hire school resource officers. Obama missed the certification issue, another costly venture. There are other Orders that you can read for yourself anywhere on the Internet. I see a very careful set of “bipartisan” Executive Orders here. Most already exist and none even remotely address the problem of handgun ownership that is, at the end of the day, responsible for the largest percentage of gun homicides and suicides. There is but a tepid reference to the mental health component.
“Folsom Prison Blues” a song written and recorded by the late Johnny Cash 57 years ago couldn’t be more appropriate than it is today…
“When I was just a baby my mama told me son,
Always be a good boy, don’t ever play with guns.
But I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die
When I hear that whistle blowing, I hang my head and cry.
Editor’s Note: Obama signed 23 executive actions, not orders. Many of the actions are memos and directives.
The President's bold and sweeping Plan to protect our children and our communities by reducing gun viole ...
Republican Governor Phil Bryant of Mississippi is calling for an unconstitutional remedy for what he see ...
At 11:55 AM, January 16, President Barack Obama revealed his "sweeping" gun regulations to include 23 "e ...
After his gun control announcement, Republicans immediately called President Obama a dictator and an imp ...
Discussion about mental illness and its treatment remains a challenge in our society. If we are go ...
Leah DiMarco
Jan. 18th, 2013 at 7:12 pm
Do some research.
President Obama did NOT sign any executive orders.
The laid out ‘proposals’ and signed three memoranda – that is all.
Leah DiMarco
Jan. 18th, 2013 at 7:15 pm
President Obama signed and issued THREE memoranda on January 16, 2013
Here: www.whitehouse.gov/briefi...
They are NOT executive orders.
EOs are different. EOs are numbered and put into the Federal Register – memoranda are not.
I wish the media would use the correct terminology.
Even the Repulicans in Congress are using the wrong words and they do not know what the heck they are talking about!
Jj5306
Jan. 18th, 2013 at 7:54 pm
The House are absolutely the craziest people in the world.
They do not belong in positions that control our destiny. They
Are totally over their heads and complete LUNATICS.!!!!
harris stein
Jan. 18th, 2013 at 8:16 pm
“As for concerns about firearms and mayhem from the seriously mentally ill, those concerns are justified. Individuals suffering from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are a particular risk to commit violent acts if they’re off their meds. Their most likely victims would be family members.”
Please provide a reference and or a link for this. Thanks.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 18th, 2013 at 8:18 pm
Used to work with a bipolar who used to decide she was the doctor for periods of time. Trust me, there are bi polar people you do not want to have guns
harris stein
Jan. 18th, 2013 at 8:29 pm
I’m sure there are bipolar people that I woulndn’t want to have access to guns, however, the post made a specific quote that cannot be proven or disproven.
gsb
Jan. 19th, 2013 at 12:50 pm
harris stein
sounds like the rep.party is saying “only family members would be the most likely victims” and that is O.K.? with them.
djchefron
Jan. 18th, 2013 at 8:24 pm
And people are arguing over background checks?
Photo of JC Penney shopper with rifle strapped to back, strikes a nerve
news.yahoo.com/video/phot...
Julie T
Jan. 18th, 2013 at 10:04 pm
Is anyone really surprised about this? The GOP will do anything and everything to stop any sane proposals.
majii
Jan. 19th, 2013 at 12:12 am
The #1 reason many GOP politicians react with extremism to anything the president says/does is because, if President Obama is for it, they must automatically be against it, even if they supported it in the recent past. For many republican politicians, it seems that things are never a reflection of what most Americans want them to do, but a political game they can play to pit one group of Americans against another. They are pretending that the lives of the 20 kids and six school officials who were assassinated at Sandy Hook was only an “unfortunate” event that we can do nothing about–forget it, and move right along, now! It should be clear to any American who has been paying attention that they are protecting the gun manufacturers whose ability to profit by selling guns are more important than the lives of the American people, even the lives of innocent, unarmed kids in schools.
Andrew Rei
Jan. 19th, 2013 at 1:07 am
Earlier today, I was watching Politics Nation with Al Sharpton…the Reverend interviewed a GOP asshat who’s a representative in the Tennessee state legislature…as usual, this GOPer used the circular argument that 10th Amendment allows the states to refuse to recognize or enforce federal laws. They talked about the President’s Executive Actions and suggestions regarding gun legislation…Well then, Mr. GOP idiot: may I direct you to the 2008 Supreme Court case D.C. vs Heller…here’s what the majority, in part and including radical Conservative justice/idiot Antonin Scalia, wrote:
“(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.”
In other words, the majority holds the same opinion that I do: the Second Amendment doesn’t allow for the unfettered access and ownership of guns. To date, all gun restriction legislation, except for DC vs. Heller (which was harshly restrictive and was ruled unconstitutional), has been upheld in every level of court proceedings. That included the oft-discussed Assault Weapons ban of 1994, which was allowed to expire in 2004 thanks to the NRA and the GOP national legislature/White House.
This GOP moron from Tennessee is a “Tenther”…radical believers in the 10th…
Andrew Rei
Jan. 19th, 2013 at 1:16 am
Politico’s system won’t allow me to post the rest of my comment…changes need to be made, guys :( ssmdh
random crazy person
Jan. 19th, 2013 at 10:05 am
I’ll just say that I’m bi-polar and not violent at all. I hate guns, and only bought one when I was suicidal. I sold it(and now am not legally allowed to own one, which is fine, because they’re pretty useless, unless you want to kill something, and I don’t want to kill anything). I don’t take any meds, because they make me fat or not hungry at all(and cost a fortune that I do not have). But, hey, feel free to blame me and people like me, when, in reality, guns are FAR too easy to obtain, and it gets easier by the ALEC bill. I don’t think any of this matters though, because, in my opinion, most ‘mericuns are too damn dumb to do most anything, actually(and I’m from the “wonderful” state of Kentucky(though I will never venture into that blighted forest-land of ignorance). The only thing that people seem to be able to do well is kill, hate and destroy, but what do I know? I’m just the crazy nut-job that’s off his meds and is the next mass-shooter-in-waiting… OR how about we do ANYTHING we can to take these weapons out of ANY hands, let alone the “wrong” ones? If you need/ want a weapon like that, it is, to me, the surest sign that you should never be allowed to have it.
Dennis S
Jan. 19th, 2013 at 10:12 am
Hello
Here is an explanation responding to the concerns expressed by Leah DiMarco that I “do some research” and that the President’s Executive Orders are not Executive Orders at all and that three of them are actually individual Memorandums.
Thank you for those concerns over my submission. Please consider a statement I found in my research on the subject: “Not one of the Executive Orders – contrary to what a few have said – impinges upon anyone’s Second Amendment rights or is inconsistent with the historical use of executive power,” Holder told a committee of the U.S. Conference of Mayors at a Washington hotel.
This is a statement from the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder relative to the President’s “Executive Orders.” I assume he recognizes Executive Orders when he sees them.
If you’ll re-read the text of the Obama speech, you’ll note his use of “Orders” in going to the small table to sign the 23 Executive Orders. “Let’s sign these Orders.”
Your confusion over the terminology is understandable.
There were three calls for Memoranda included in the Presidential signings. The Memoranda however were called for in the specific Executive Order. Executive Order number 1: Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal…etc. So you have an Executive Order calling for the issuance of a Memorandum, not an existing stand-alone Memorandum.
The second Executive Order calling for the issuance of a Memorandum is number 9 covering the tracing of guns. The third Executive Order calling for a Memorandum issuance is number 14 related to CDC research into gun violence. Your White House Website reference to Memorandums was simply the wording of 1, 9 and 14.
As for the term ‘proposals’, Article 11 of the Constitution gives the President the right to “propose” or “recommend” to Congress, but it carries no statutory weight of adoption.
You can be assured that in this case the “Media” used the correct terminology.
Robert Chapman
Jan. 19th, 2013 at 11:42 am
The GOP might have waited a bit longer and refined their position before making it pulbic.
As it stands the GOP is advocating two self-contradictory policies.
The policies involve increased federal funding for mental health services and gun control.
To establish my argument, I will take the GOP position on gun control first. The GOP argue that the second amendment consists entirely of the phrase,”…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Stemming this reading of the second part of the gun amendment, the GOP have argued vociferously against the use of legislative powers or public funds in gun control of any kind.
From this line of reasonning it would stand to reason that even federal funding in support of Mental Health would be subject to the limitations imposed by the Second Amendment.
A large number of those people with serious mental health disorders like bipolar syndrome and schizophrenia will be living in group homes to facilitate treatment and provide assisted living services.
It would stand to reason under the GOP interpretation of the Second Amendment that group homes accepting the enriched federal subsidies the GOP is advocating would be trading their private property right to forbid guns on their premises for federal funds for their programs and residential support.
The GOP cannot have it both ways, if they demand that the state has no power to control guns, they must insist on the rights of the group home RESIDENTS to unrestricted access to firearms as a matter of constitutional law.
This is one of many of the offenses against prudence and public safety inherent in the GOP gun rights position.
Deborah Foster
Jan. 19th, 2013 at 9:35 pm
What Obama signed was quite measured and definitely not restrictive of any gun rights. It’s loony for people to overreact and call him some kind of dictator or suggest he overreached. Letting the CDC do research on gun violence…tracing guns recovered in criminal investigations…a few background checks…freaking out about these just proves that people deserve the moniker, “gun nut.”
8^/
Jan. 20th, 2013 at 1:51 pm
OMG! THERE GONA MOVE??? ……..its about time the GOP, shows us, “we the people” who they are!