Rep. Steve Stockman Threatens Impeachment, Defunding White House If President Obama Uses Executive Orders on Guns

House Republicans showing just how mean-spirited they can be. Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) threatened to file articles of impeachment against President Obama if he uses executive order to try to reduce gun violence. This is after two mothers spoke at a press conference Monday about their loss as a result of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting massacre and were emphatic in their position that something must be done to curb gun violence and have formed a new initiative, The Sandy Hook Promise, to that end.

“The White House’s recent announcement they will use executive orders and executive actions to infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms is an unconstitutional and unconscionable attack on the very founding principles of this republic,” Stockman said in a statement. “I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment.” Source:  Talking Points Memo

Is Rep. Steve Stockman for real? I wonder if he would take the same position if, God forbid, one of his kids or even a relative was gunned down as those 2o kids and six adults in Newtown. Guess who is in the National Rifle Association’s back pocket? Rep. Steve Stockman.

This was cross-posted from The Hinterland Gazette.

         

Author: JANET SHAN

Share This Post On

23 Comments

  1. Since there are well over a thousand signatures from Texas to secede, I think it’s about time the president let them do it.

    The fewer gun crazy states we have controlling our country, the better.

  2. Who is Steve Stockman? He defeated a 40 year veteran Dem. Jack Brooks in the anti-incumbent election of 1994. He was not re-elected in 1996 or since, until the 2012. Why? From the Dallas Morning News:

    http://www.dallasnews.com/inco.....meback.ece

    …his 24 months at the Capitol were riddled with controversies that gained national attention.

    He defended the militia movement in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing. He suggested that President Bill Clinton planned the Branch Davidian siege near Waco to build support for gun control. And he proposed a measure many colleagues viewed as bizarre to investigate the famous “Kinsey report” on sexual behavior, 48 years after its publication.

    He championed limits on congressional benefits, called for a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution and demanded an end to automatic citizenship for American-born children of illegal immigrants.

    Any question where these nut cases come from? Direct from the GOP’s training ground.

    “Steve Stockman was a tea party activist before there was a tea party,” said Morton Blackwell, president of the Leadership Institute, a national training ground for conservative activists and politicians where Stockman worked from 2005 to 2007. “There are a great deal more solidly conservative congressmen now than we had in those days.”

    From his election website:
    SECURING OUR BORDERS – Congressman Steve Stockman sponsored a constitutional amendment to prevent citizenship and benefits to anchor babies of illegal aliens

    Congressman Steve Stockman sponsored a bill declaring English the official language of the United States

    PROTECTING OUR GUN RIGHTS – Congressman Steve Stockman sponsored a bill eliminating background checks, waiting periods, and registration for firearms
    Endorsed by the Gun Owners of America.Endorsed by the National Rifle Association.

    Endorsed by the Texas State Rifle Association.

    PROTECTING THE INALIENABLE RIGHT TO LIFE – Congressman Steve Stockman sponsored the ban on Partial Birth Abortions

    Congressman Steve Stockman sponsored a bill making it federal law that life begins at conception

    PROTECTING OUR FAMILIES – Congressman Steve Stockman sponsored “Megan’s Law,” requiring parents to be notified if a sex offender moves into your community

    PROTECTING OUR FAITH – Congressman Steve Stockman sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act to stop federal recognition of homosexual marriage

    CUTTING SPENDING – Congressman Steve Stockman sponsored the Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution

    Has NEVER voted for a tax hike

    Named “The Taxpayer’s Best Friend” by the National Taxpayers Union

  3. A couple weeks ago, a friend of mine posted something on the Facebook that put all this into perspective. It was a pretty good rant, but though I won’t copy and paste it here, I’ll repeat the salient point:

    If we really want to enact gun control in this country, the solution is easy. Simply take the NRA at their word that more guns = more safety, and propose arming as many citizens as possible.

    Young, black, male citizens.

    You want armed guards at elementary schools? Okay. Let’s make ‘em armed young black males. Perhaps even with berets. Or hoodies. Outfit the heavily armed young black males in regalia associated in popular culture with the “Black Panthers” or any other militant organization, and you’ll see calls for gun control from white right wingers almost immediately.

    It happened before.

    In 1968 Huey Newton and Bobby Seale walked into the California Capitol with rifles slung over their shoulders (because it was legal) and next thing you know Ronald Reagan was signing gun bans into effect faster than you could say “scary black man.”

  4. Cjjack, EXCELLENT!! We could hire them for all sporting events and large public gatherings as well. Give them an ironic name like CASPER ( Citizen Armed Service Personnel). I think it would work!

  5. Interesting,cjjack.

    Reminds me of what Gun Appreciation Day chairman, Larry Ward said:

    “The truth is, I think Martin Luther King would agree with me if he were alive today that if African Americans had been given the right to keep and bear arms from day one of the country’s founding, perhaps slavery might not have been a chapter in our history. And I believe wholeheartedly that’s essential to liberty.”

  6. Well Dorian, I can’t speak for Dr. King, but I think I can safely say that Larry Ward is out of his mind.

    He conveniently forgets that for two centuries before “day one of the country’s founding,” black people were slaves, and that the idea of arming them would have landed him in the looney bin if he’d spoke it aloud back then.

    What we’re dealing with here is not something that goes back to 1776, but centuries prior to the official start of the U.S.A. All these years later, we’re still dealing with the remnants of the idea that people of color are a bit less than people.

    The sad thing is that Rep. Stockman is far from the first person to suggest impeachment for President Obama. There is a consistent, dedicated element on the right hand of American politics that views Obama as illegitimate, and a person who must be removed from office no matter what.

    I have a very hard time believing race plays no role in this view.

  7. Sadly, I have to agree with all you say, cjjack…

  8. Gotta like a guy that protects life before birth and demonizes it after birth.
    “Anchor babies” unbelievable.

    Just another ignorant Republican.

  9. Yeah, there’s a good discussion point: it’s all racism.

    Well guys, show some guts and actually push for arming the inner city. I’d love to see what new story becomes the narrative when the NRA and Republicans take you up on your offer.

  10. Typical 21st century republican idiocy. It seems to be endless.

  11. SL, “just another ignorant Republican.”
    Terrific. How about: just an ignorant Republican.

    CJ, This is a nut job that happens to come from Texas and happens to be a a Rep. That’s it, and yes there is a whiff of racism going on here. Why not, instead of arming black men, using ex-cons where we would still have a preponderance of blacks, at least there would be some diversity, like for example at the WH staff meeting.

  12. dd, “an ignorant” implies that there could be only one, which we know is an impossibility lol at least right now.

    I am still for arming all children. It is the only way to keep them safe.

  13. Well Dduck when we are talking elected officials I think it becomes much more than a fringe voice lost in the crowd. A nutjob that happens to be a Representative(unless you meant Republican by that abbreviation) is actually kind of an issue in my book. They can pass laws and stuff.

  14. Why try to be accurate or fair when you can be another inaccurate commenter at TMV. :-)

  15. “”Gotta like a guy that protects life before birth and demonizes it after birth.
    “Anchor babies” unbelievable.”
    SL, I don’t see how this is demonizing life. Is there a more acceptable term to describe this practice? This term was used in a Huffington article and I didn’t see any objections in the comments to it’s use.

    “Are ‘Anchor Babies’ Sinking the American Economy?”
    “Unfortunately, the modern interpretation of the 14th Amendment is subject to regular abuse, with non-residents exploiting its language to facilitate their own residency. The past few decades have seen a rash of pregnant foreigners intentionally giving birth on American soil, in order to ensure citizenship for their offspring, and potentially themselves. ”
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....43158.html

  16. Where is the discussion about whether this type of executive order is legal? I happen to agree with most of Obama’s (leaked) edicts. But I also feel they are wrong and that type of thing really bothers me. It always has.

    If it comes to pass it will come back to bite the left. Progressives are on a roll. But political parties can’t stand success. They always over reach and shoot (pun intended) themselves in the foot. Dems have ducks in a row to ruin Repubs in 2014 and then have two years of free will. Why would a President and ultra eager progressives risk that? I think I answered that.

    We have a Congress and they are the correct source of legislation. If it can’t pass Congress then America waits for a new Congress. Just because you believe the President is correct is not a good enough reason.

  17. Z, anchor baby, tar baby, what is the difference? How about just “baby”?
    Anchor baby is dehumanizing. Period.

  18. I see your point SL, it’s a label for the child who did nothing except be born.

  19. KP

    From what I understand, executive orders issued by the executive branch of the government are perfectly legal as long as they don’t negate any law that has been passed by the legislative branch.

    Waiting for another congress to be elected when the current congress is willing to negate the executive branch’s power by impeachment proceedings isn’t a great way (or a legal way) to run the country. Not to mention that impeachment proceedings are meant to be for serious misdeeds not ideological differences.

    Here is one reference:

    When the president abuses this power, Congress can subvert the order by passing a law to preempt it. However, this remains unlikely considering that it has happened only about 20 times in 100 years and that the president still has the power to veto the law from Congress. Since the process is largely unregulated by Congress, it is up to the courts to rule that an E.O. exceeds the president’s executive authority.

    http://www.thelegality.com/200.....dents-pen/

  20. The_Ohioan, I appreciate what you are saying. The executive order may be legal but it is my understanding that they are only legally binding on those people who work for the President, ie, federal government.

    Example: Colorado and Washington have legalized marijuana. They can ignore federal laws that prohibits marijuana use. As well, officers of the law are sworn to uphold the constitution. In doing so, they can ignore executive orders if they step out of bounds. State law may trump executive order.

    What confuses me, as part of a political strategy, is the President putting his political power over the next four years under additional duress by using executive order. Some states will ignore him and it sets up a battle in the 2014 elections for those who will be running for re-election.

    Obama’s most shrewd move will be to pressure Congress on these issues, not use executive order and stir up a hornests nest.

  21. KP

    I think you are correct about executive orders only affecting Federal agencies, since those are the only agencies under the Executive’s command. As far as marijuana, there is still a Federal law against using mj even for medical purposes that trumps any state law.

    U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Montana Donald W. Molloy said that even if the plaintiffs’ alleged conduct was legal under state law, the conduct was illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

    There are many gun laws on the books that he can enforce, those are what he is effecting with the executive orders announced today. In addition, he is asking Congress to move on other laws. No states should ignore federal laws, or they will do so at the peril of being sued by the Federal government.

    It may not be good politics, but he just feels it’s the right thing to do. Maybe he thinks it is good politics. Since 2/3 of the country are not gun owners, he may be right.

  22. Thanks for your detailed response.

    “It may not be good politics, but he just feels it’s the right thing to do.”

    On this we agree. The thrust of my comment was not to disagree with his wishes, but his politics.

Submit a Comment