Reader comments
America is turning into a monarchy

Amen to that!!!

Hit the nail on the head!!!!

Spot on!
Who can argue this? Im sure some one out there is going to try. Probably a liberal in denial.
It's time for another revolution!
RON PAUL REVOLUTION!!
BACK TO THE CONSTITUION!

Robert - perfect reasoining! Thanks for this frightening but accurate illustration.

Do you mean that an organization that fights to protect our rights, like the ACLU is NOT the biggest threat that our country faces?

Michael Savage says they are, Jerry Falwell said we were attacked on 9/11 beacause of "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays..., the ACLU...".

It appears that at this point in our republic, that there are people who seek to gain power by removal of individual rights speaking out against the very organizations dedicated to preserving those rights. Unfortunately, their attacks have become accepted by those on the political right.

There was a time when the saying "Give me liberty or give me death" meant something. Now it seems it should be "give me my Idol or I'm going to do something else"

Liberal diatribe, Libs just love spreading lies.

The letter writer lost all credibility when he noted that the president declared war without consent of congress. This is a bald-faced lie. Congress and the senate both voted in favor of military action in Iraq, and indeed war was never declared in Iraq nor Afghanistan. This has precedent in other military action we have taken including Korea and Mr. Hillary Clinton's bombing runs in Serbia, Kosovo, and in attacks in Iraq (yes, Clinton tried to take out WMD factories in Iraq...did we all forget that?).

Also, he makes it sound like Saul forcibly took power and he implies that is what the president is doing now: forcibly turning our country into a monarchy. Nothing is further from the truth in either area. We have a general election coming up this year, and in ancient Israel, the judges voted to hand over power to Saul.

At least do 3 minutes of research before spouting off. Try searching wikipedia for declaration of war in america. All of the truth is available in black and white. More liberal panic-rhetoric without substance, just what we all needed, a directionless voice with no ideas, just hot air. An wrong hot air to boot.

We can be an empire or we can be a republic, we can't be both. America has over 800 military bases and facilities around the world. That sounds more like an empire to me.

This might explain how the monstrous administration we have in power today got elected (if you want to call that last debacle an "election")
But real American is finally waking up.

Libertarian, Steve and Chad - can you guys get your stories straight. Is this a pro-liberal or anti-liberal post. Don't you guys get a monthly newsletter with all the conservative mantras attached. Come on. I lttle coordination is necessary for us to be able to identify the liberal messages from the conservitive ones.

:The Declaration of Independence:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Fifty plus years of abuses and usurpations producing the same object, is enough to invoke this marvelously turned phrase, and make it a reality again.

Let the revolution begin.

Why the modern American conservative movement would embrace the master/slave ideology is beyond me.
It is the way the country was founded however.
But, it's good to be the King.
Are you a King?

Another typically liberal anti-Bush diatribe, with attending historical inaccuracies.

Not only is it becoming a monarchy, but we have our own royalty, as well. Kennedys, Rockefellers, Bushes - and even in Utah - Romneys, Leavitts, Cannons and Huntsmans. People born with platinum spoons in their mouths who have no concept of what the "common man" deals with on a day-to-day basis. If fact, if it's "common," they want nothing to do with it. They flaunt their superiority - they are above the law - and if not, they change the law to be sure that they are. They buy power. With that power, they manipulate what needs to be manipulated to get more money, with which they buy more power. Next time you get mad at the cost to fill up your vehicle, just remember - these prices are brought to you by GW and Chenney - and don't kid yourself into thinking they aren't they making a sweet penny off the skyrocketing fuel prices. But, then, when is the last time you or anyone ever saw Mitt filling up his Mercedes at the local Tesoro station?

@Mike R. 9:02.

I disagree (rare...I usually agree with you). It cites recent "presidents." And the executive branch IS much more powerful today than it was in, say, George Washington's time. It is true that many of the founders favored a strong executive; but most did not, and the constitution was framed with enumerated powers, checks, and balances that arguably favor the legislature. Now, Congress has lost power to the other two branches.

I believe, and this just occurred to me, so feel free to comment, that Congress can only blame itself for it's weakened state. Namely, the filibuster rule in the Senate constricts their power to much. And they do it voluntarily! As I understand it, the filibuster rule is the Senate's own procedural process, NOT based on any constitutional provision. And this one rule is probably the biggest factor in the gridlock mess we call a Congress.

In one fell swoop, we could perhaps drastically improve and empower our Congress by eliminating the filibuster rule and putting in term limits (I can be generous, maybe as much as three terms in the Senate, five in the House).

We can argue over the war-making power and its legality, but while many things may be legal, that doesn't make them moral. If you've taken the time to understand the intent of the Founding Fathers regarding war-making powers, you'd know the much effort and time was taken to make sure the president would never have the ability to make war. They railed against monarchies specifically because monarchs can go to war whenever they wish, without the consent of the people or their representatives. The spirit of the Constitution is to limit the power of the executive to take us to war. If anyone is to blame in giving the president so much latitude in involving us in military conflicts without a declaration of war, it is the congress. The U.S. congress has become a rubber-stamping, grandstanding arena that has been self-emasculated. Only they themselves can restore the congressional duty of declaring war and prohibiting the president from engaging in military adventures. The Supreme Court is not going to help them, they're another rubber-stamp branch. We just seem to keep electing weak-kneed representatives who cower at the demands of the presidency.

I can't agree that Israel in the time of Judges was a republic. It was more like a loose confederation of tribes who found it useful to unite when faced with a common threat. The book of Judges even hints that it was a poor system at the book's conclusion.

But having said that, I think the writer is correct in directing our attention away from frivolous matters to serious ones. Power vacuums don't last long, and the executive branch has rushed in to fill them all too quickly. Reining it in will be a tough, but necessary task.

Why do our neocon brothers and sisters have such an agonizingly difficult time accepting the fact that their party at large has taken this country in the wrong direction?

"What's up with them" -- It's because we disagree with you. As citizens in a democratic republic tend to do. And because we believe that for all our representatives' faults, your side is likely to be worse -- starting with its promises to repeat Herbert Hoover's disastrous response to the 1929 recession (protectionism and tax hikes), which turned that recession into the Great Depression.

Also, because we believe that when so much of a person's argument consists of mockery and so little of substance, he hasn't thought things through.

Re: the letter, it's been awhile since I slogged through the Old Testament, but danged if I can remember reading about the ancient Israelite prophets spending much time quibbling about education budgets.

And if engaging the armed forces in military conflicts means the President has become a "king," then America has been a monarchy since the John Adams administration. (Read up on the naval war with France in 1798.) Or the immediately-following Jefferson administration (the wars against the Barbary pirate-jihadists). The vast majority of American military conflicts have been waged without a formal declaration of war, and repeated Supreme Court cases have upheld the practice.

bush is a criminal. and everyone that voted for him is too. anyone who did not pay attention enough to see that is responsible. I remember telling everyone I knew in 1999 to be ware of that man. It was obvious to me that he never had any intention of representing anyone but himself and his oil companies. I told people that he was going to find a reason to attack Iraq. I only have a high school education but I was smart enough to recognize Cheney and Rumsfeld as a continuation of executive power that was responsible for the lies that America was told about vietnam! was I the only one who paid attention in American history in high school? at this point even if you consider yourself to be a conservative republican you must admit that Bush has distorted what that means to the very core. if you haven't acknowledged that you might as well be a fan of Hitler!