Actually, Mike Huckabee's recommendation to gun dealers is more along the lines of civil disobedience (that might, from a PR standpoint, play into the gun-grabbers' hands with low-information voters), but it's in the spirit of nullification:
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee told Newsmax TV on Friday that gun dealers should ignore any new executive orders from Barack Obama requiring new background checks on buyers.
Appropriate, given that they would be yet another direct violation of Article I, Section 1's strict limitation of "the legislative Power" to Congress as well as, by extension, a flagrant evisceration of the Second Amendment, and thus by definition illegal, invalid, and void.
"There should certainly be an absolute, unapologetic — just complete ignoring of such an order by those gun-shop owners, because the president can't make law," the former Arkansas governor told "The Steve Malzberg Show" in an interview. "He just can't.
Oh, yes, he can, Huck; he just cannot do so legally or constitutionally. But he most certainly has the power to do so. When those FBI agents raid all those gun shops and drag away their owners in handcuffs and legirons and they're incarcerated and ruined, the illegality behind it won't ameliorate the reality of those consequences.
Is such a hill worth dying on? That's debatable, but there's got to be some hill on which to take such a stand sooner or later. But those who do should count and be aware of the cost of doing so. Or, in other words, and as the old saying goes, "freedom isn't free".
Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay argues for The One's long-anticipated imperial gun-control decrees to be met with impeachment proceedings:
Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay told Newsmax TV on Friday that if Barack Obama implemented a plan to require background checks on....gun sales by executive order and without congressional approval, the House should consider impeachment proceedings.
"The very fact that you might bring it before the Judiciary Committee and investigate it and determine whether it's an impeachable offense is a very healthy thing to do," DeLay, the Texas Republican who served in the position from 2003 to 2005, told Newsmax Prime in an interview....
It's awfully late in the game for deploying that tactic, actually, after all the unopposed imperial presidential precedents that have been set by his infernal majesty, and it would be just as big a PR backfire today as it would have been a few years ago, and majority Republicans wouldn't have the votes among themselves to do it, in all likelihood. But what they hell? It'd be entertaining no matter how it turned out. And politics is all about entertainment these days, right?
DeLay, sixty-eight, who also served as Majority Whip, says Congress needs to stand strong against Obama on any such unilateral action.
"The House needs to use its power of hearings to start letting the American people know that this is a lawless president, we have a lawless Supreme Court — and the judiciary needs to step up and show the American people what this president is doing, which will support any other efforts to defund the president."
The American people know they have a lawless president, Hammer. They knew that three years ago, and they reelected him anyway. They simply do not care. Indeed, most Americans probably don't understand why he's lawless, because they've never been taught the U.S. Constitution or the truth about the Founding Fathers and the federal republic they created for the Posterity that can't be bothered to miss Dancing With The Stars or Empire to do the homework on their own.
That's where we come in. But it will be the work of generations, and can have no bearing on Mr. DeLay's suggestion. Which is why it won't be heeded.
Now if you want to laugh, even if in embarrassment, here is Mo....
Um, no, not THAT Mo, I mean Mo Brooks, the GOP U.S. Representative from Alabama's Fifth Congressional District, who appears to have the proper sequence of due process mixed up:
Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Friday denounced as "pathetic" and "totally ridiculous" a Republican congressman's call to impeach her on her first day in office if she is elected to the White House next year.
[Mrs.] Clinton....was responding to comments made by Republican Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama-5.
He told a radio interviewer that "she will be a unique president if she is elected by the public next November because the day she's sworn in is the day that she's subject to impeachment because she has committed high crimes and misdemeanors."
Don't worry, I'll spare you the Ugly Dutchess's chortling and snickering that Mo gifted to her on a silver platter. But the plain, simple fact of the matter is that Hillary is right about his comments being "totally ridiculous". She would not, by definition, be subject to impeachment for her Emailgate crimes because she did not commit them while POTUS. She would have been subject to impeachment while she was still Commissar of State, but she "got outta Dodge" long before her current scandals on her illegal "homebrewed" server and Benghazigate came to light. So there would be no grounds for impeaching a President Rodham thirty-five seconds after having taken the oath of office.
That's not to say that there wouldn't be such grounds later, after all the new high crimes and misdemeanors she would commit. Just not on day one, which, by the by, is usually the high water mark of a newly elected president's "honeymoon period". Illustrating for all to see that Mo Brooks' political instincts are as abysmal as his knowledge of constitutional civics.
Far better to ensure that Hillary Clinton never gets elected president to begin with, which rests in the hands of GOP primary voters.
Now THERE's a frightening prospect.