stroo wrote:If Obama is re-elected he won't go through Congress with anti-gun measures. He will do it through regulation through the ATF and the EPA. Or he may even do it through the UN. And Congress won't be able to overturn it because Obama won't sign any such legislation.
I disagree, and here's why (and Lord knows I find it hard to love Obama):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Co ... ted_States
Size of the Court
Article III of the United States Constitution leaves it to Congress to fix the number of justices. The Judiciary Act of 1789 called for the appointment of six justices, and as the nation's boundaries grew, Congress added justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: seven in 1807, nine in 1837, and ten in 1863.
In 1866, at the behest of Chief Justice Chase, Congress passed an act providing that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced, which would thin the bench to seven justices by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. In 1869, however, the Circuit Judges Act returned the number of justices to nine,[60] where it has since remained.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court in 1937. His proposal envisioned appointment of one additional justice for each incumbent justice who reached the age of 70 years 6 months and refused retirement, up to a maximum bench of 15 justices. The proposal was ostensibly to ease the burden of the docket on elderly judges, but the actual purpose was widely understood as an effort to pack the Court with justices who would support Roosevelt's New Deal.[61] The plan, usually called the "Court-packing Plan", failed in Congress and proved a fiasco for Roosevelt.[62] Nevertheless, the Court's balance began to shift within months when Justice van Devanter retired and was replaced by Senator Hugo Black. By the end of 1941, Roosevelt had appointed seven justices and elevated Harlan Fiske Stone to Chief Justice.[63]
The above will become important in a minute.....
Obama cannot enforce a UN treaty to which the US is not a signatory, because that treaty can have no force of law for us until we are a signatory. It would be completely legal for law enforcement to ignore his requests to do so. Congress has to sign off on any such treaty, and they're not going to. Further, even a democrat Congress is jealous of its prerogatives, and it is a fairly certain bet that (taking into account the pro-gun Blue Dog democrats) there would be enough votes in Congress to override a presidential veto of legislation which would curb that activity. The UN is a largely evil organization, and nothing could make me happier than to see it forced to move from our shores and live within its means, if not disbanded. But I don't think that the UN has much power or authority over what happens within our borders, and I doubt that a jealous Congress would willingly cede that much power either to a president, or to the UN.
The reason I mention the number of SCOTUS Justices is that I think the biggest threat from Obama is to the court. I suspect that, in the wake of the healthcare bill debacle and a chance for SCOTUS to weigh in on the constitutionality of such things, the current 5 justice majority which seems to not be predisposed to agreeing with Obama are likely going to hold onto their seats as long as they have breath and a pulse; and they're not going to agree to retire until they can rest assured that they won't be replaced by judicial lightweights like Sotomayor and Kagan. The eldest justices (in order of age) are: Ginsburg (79), Scalia (76), Kennedy (75), and Breyer (73). Ginsburg is fighting cancer (colon and pancreatic), and it would not be surprising to see her step down. If Obama is reelected, I would guess that she'll step down after the election and give him the chance to nominate another young communist to the bench. I don't feature either Scalia or Kennedy giving up until they are certain that they can be replaced by a thinker rather than a party aparatchik. I don't know about Breyer. In any case, the court balance is not going to likely change if Obama gets a second term. Therefore, the only way he can ram his illegal agenda through and not have it go down in flames is to try and pack the court.
As the above quote points out, the number of justices has been set by Congress at 9 since 1869. The last attempt to pack the court was from FDR (figures), and that was soundly rejected by Congress, rightly understanding that packing the court would rob them of their own power. Obama would have to try and pack the court again, and Congress isn't going to go for it. So the number of justices will remain at 9, and we can continue to hope that if he is reelected, Obama won't be able to go by backdoors to oppress the people. He'll have to do it up front, in your face, just like he did with healthcare, and that appears to have been rejected by the court.
By the way, not to change the topic, but I saw some recent poll results showing (no surprise) that 77% of all Americans oppose the healthcare bill; 71% of all independents oppose it; and
57% of all
democrats oppose it. I don't think Obama can win reelection.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT
