Obama and Biden's Unconstitutional Stomp

It is against the Constitution and against the law to pass any kind of measure that affects a Second Ammendment right.

Obama, or any other President of the United States, does not have the legal authority to pass laws on their own, because their Club VP gives them some ideas.

Fleming, from Florida, who wrote in and has made comments to oppose it, is correct in what he said.

That it is against the law for a President to do this.

Making any kind of change, even the slightest tweaking of any provision, regarding a Constitutional right is illegal.

I told my Dad this morning, "Why don't we get our guns and go."

I mean, this isn't even The United States anymore.

This other woman got on to talk about how it wasn't changing the law, just altering the background checks, and she included mental health checks.

They already have that. There are already full background checks.

Regardless, even that much came about, not by a President-only authorization but by a process.

I guess process isn't important to the U.S. anymore.

In fact, it's so irrelevant, the Department of State and FBI can collude with Canadians to have requ4ests for Political Asylum ignored and set someone up for a false arrest instead.

It's not like I ever got a Political Asylum hearing with my son there, as I requested. Instead, they ignored that process and decided to arrest me instead, on false arrest, when I was legally there.

That is ignoring process. Asking Obama to correct this and return my son is not ignoring process.

My request to Obama to have my son returned after an illegal kidnapping is correcting a violation of the Constitution. It doesn't change the Constitution. It corrects an aggregious violation of the Constitution.

There is a thin line.

Can Obama make changes to laws that affect the Constitution, all on his own? No.

Can Obama correct violations of Constitutional laws, all on his own? Yes.

He has the power to pardon people. That is a correction to a violation of Constitutional law. The person violating the law is actually the one that benefits, in a pardon, but it is a "correction" to a violation of Constitutional law. Bill Clinton was pardoned. When he was pardoned did this change the law? No, it corrected a violation of the law. No one went to court to pardon Clinton. It was by Executive Order.

Executive Order allows for "corrections" to VIOLATIONS of law that is already in place. Executive Order is NOT allowed for "changing" laws that are already in place that are Constitutional.

It also addresses violations of law that, correct or not, were addressed publicly and went through a process already (which ended up in a judgment which is either true or false). That judgment is suspended and removed when a President flouts the courts and says, "I pardon you" by Executive Order.

If criminals are pardoned, what about innocent people that have been tortured and put through a process that has been corrupt from the first day?

Obama has Executive Power to return my son to me. He would not be pardoning me. I have not done anything wrong, where the state has lied and obstructed justice and tortured my family.

He would be correcting a violation of law, committed by The FBI and Department of State and by this country.

If he has power to pardon criminals, which is a correction to violation of a law, he has power to return children illegally taken from their parents, even if there was a so-called 'process', because it is the same kind of correction to violation of a law.

He does NOT have power to make "changes" to the law without approval.

It's a fine line and I distinguish it.

I wanted to be a lawyer and the FBI interfered with that. Then they tried to force me into their arms after allowing NASA to assault me and my son further.

What this country has done is illegal and I demand a correction of the violations of law against me and my son, by Executive Order.