On the 10th Day, with no Fanfare, President Trump Signs Social-Security Disapproval Resolution

[Elderberry]

Josh Blackman's Blog 3/1/2017

I’ve written at some length about the congressional-review act disapproval resolution of an Obama-administration regulation that would have denied the right to acquire firearms to certain people on disability, who requested a representative to manage their payments.

The resolution passed the House on 2/2/17 and passed the Senate on 2/15/17. It was presented to the President on 2/16/17. I had been expecting at some point over the past week for the President to hold a ostentatious signing statement. But one never came. In fact, he signed it on the 10th day, without any public ceremony.  Meanwhile, he held several other signing ceremonies.

Why was this resolution signed so quietly? A few theories jump to mind. Despite Trump’s steadfast defense of the Second Amendment, he supported the “no buy” list, which would deny people on terrorist watch lists (based only on a suspicion) the ability to acquire firearms. This was patently unconstitutional, in violation of both the 2nd Amendment, as well as the Due Process Clause. The NRA and the ACLU were on the same page here. Perhaps Trump thinks people with disabilities, who need representative payees, should not be trusted with firearms.  Or maybe he didn’t like the optics of the signing ceremony, which would have involved NRA members and people with disabilities.

It’s strange that no ceremony was held, but signed the resolution was. Now the Social Security Administration is forever disabled from regulating in this, or a similar area. Such is the risk of rushing out a midnight regulation.

One final note about the timing.  Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 provides that if “any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law.” Although Article I, Section 7, Clause 3 provides that a “Resolution,” must be “presented to the President” after the “Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives,” it isn’t entirely clear from the Text of the Constitution that Resolutions also take effect if not returned within ten Days.

I checked with Mike Stern, who is an expert on all things procedural. He located a 1989 OLC Opinion signed by Doug Kmiec, which suggests that the President also has ten days to sign the resolution, or during the same period veto it. It doesn’t answer the question of whether the resolution takes effect, even in the absence of the signature, but the import of the opinion is that it would. I did this research in advance, because I suspected Trump wouldn’t sign it, at all.

http://joshblackman.com/blog/2017/03/01/on-the-10th-day-with-no-fanfare-president-trump-signs-social-security-disapproval-resolution/

[Emjay]

I agree.  People who are 'suspected' terrorists should not be allowed to purchase firearms.  This article makes a lot of snarky assumptions about the low key signing of this resolution.

[Elderberry]

I agree.  People who are 'suspected' terrorists should not be allowed to purchase firearms.  This article makes a lot of snarky assumptions about the low key signing of this resolution.

Who are the suspectors that tag people to have their Second Amendment rights taken away without due process?

[Ancient]

There are some people who are potential dangerous due to mental health conditions... that decision shouldn't be made by a social security admin based on who a check is sent too...

I think the Republican's missed an easy opportunity on this one.  There is not a pandemic of geriatric gun violence, and who get's a person's social security check should NOT be used to deprive them of their 2nd amendment rights.

This was a classic example of a heavy handed over-reach by the liberals and the optics could have been a room full of hunting grandma's and grandpa's.  They should have made fun of the democrats for restricting any gun rights they can even when it has absolutely nothing to do with crime/safety.

[rodamala]

I agree.  People who are 'suspected' terrorists should not be allowed to purchase firearms.

You are the terrorist.

[mountaineer]

There are some people who are potential dangerous due to mental health conditions... that decision shouldn't be made by a social security admin based on who a check is sent to...

I think the Republican's missed an easy opportunity on this one.  There is not a pandemic of geriatric gun violence, and who gets a person's social security check should NOT be used to deprive them of their 2nd amendment rights.

This was a classic example of a heavy handed over-reach by the liberals and the optics could have been a room full of hunting grandma's and grandpa's.  They should have made fun of the democrats for restricting any gun rights they can even when it has absolutely nothing to do with crime/safety.

Amen!

[The_Reader_David]

I agree.  People who are 'suspected' terrorists should not be allowed to purchase firearms.  This article makes a lot of snarky assumptions about the low key signing of this resolution.

And when in January 2025 the Warren Administration decides that the "right wing extremists" who post to TBR are all under suspicion of terrorism, how exactly will you feel about this issue? 

No due process, no impairment of rights.  Period.

[skeeter]

And when in January 2025 the Warren Administration decides that the "right wing extremists" who post to TBR are all under suspicion of terrorism, how exactly will you feel about this issue? 

No due process, no impairment of rights.  Period.

Agree, this is a bad deal. Limiting it to non-citizens would've gotten at least part of what this act is supposed to accomplish.

[Smokin Joe]

I agree.  People who are 'suspected' terrorists should not be allowed to purchase firearms.  This article makes a lot of snarky assumptions about the low key signing of this resolution.

@Emjay , anyone can end up on a watch list or no-fly list. We'd hope those assignations don't occur capriciously, but a name on the list can haunt multiple people. I knew a guy about 30 years ago who lived in the Denver area. His name was pretty common in the area, in fact there were six people with the same name. He related the unholy hell of dealing with bill collectors, having to prove to police he wasn't that Jack S____, even having to mount a legal defense against people who had the wrong guy in one instance.
So goes the FedGov, even today, when names are the same, forcing people to prove who they aren't on a moment's notice. No one tells you you aren't on the no-fly list until they don't let you fly. You don't get a notice in the mail. You don't have to have any solid evidence against you, personally. and to be denied your Second Amendment Rights without even having faced the accusation and with no way to defend against it is a real miscarriage of justice.
This needed to be stopped.

[Emjay]

@Emjay , anyone can end up on a watch list or no-fly list. We'd hope those assignations don't occur capriciously, but a name on the list can haunt multiple people. I knew a guy about 30 years ago who lived in the Denver area. His name was pretty common in the area, in fact there were six people with the same name. He related the unholy hell of dealing with bill collectors, having to prove to police he wasn't that Jack S____, even having to mount a legal defense against people who had the wrong guy in one instance.
So goes the FedGov, even today, when names are the same, forcing people to prove who they aren't on a moment's notice. No one tells you you aren't on the no-fly list until they don't let you fly. You don't get a notice in the mail. You don't have to have any solid evidence against you, personally. and to be denied your Second Amendment Rights without even having faced the accusation and with no way to defend against it is a real miscarriage of justice.
This needed to be stopped.

Agreed.  The government should be far quicker to correct their mistakes.  But too much ponderous bureaucracy makes that unlikely. 

Also, much more investigation should be done before a name is put on the No-Buy list.

[Smokin Joe]

Agreed.  The government should be far quicker to correct their mistakes.  But too much ponderous bureaucracy makes that unlikely. 

Also, much more investigation should be done before a name is put on the No-Buy list.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!