Comments about ‘Charles Krauthammer: The real problem in Washington: An outbreak of lawlessness’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Dec. 1 2013 4:50 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
American Fork, UT

Charlie, you've committed criminal hyperbolic speculation with this one. We've gone past an outbreak of lawlessness, which our nation celebrates, to an outbreak of stupid. Our nation celebrates this, too, but shouldn't.

Phoenix, AZ

Right on, Charles!!

Unfortunately we have a situation where a well deserved presidential impeachment will likely not take place. I think Americans are rapidly coming to the conclusion that we have a dictator in our nation's White House. Let's hope next election that at least the Senate will change so Harry will have to step down as leader. We've had about enough from him.

clearfield, UT

If Democrats or liberals want to defend what Obama and Reid, supported by the majority of Democrats in Congress are doing, consider this. If this were being done by a Republican President, and a Republican House, and Senate, would you ( the Democrats) be sitting back and acknowledging all is well, it's just our system? Of course not. You know you would be saying the very same things that Mr. Krauthammer is saying. THAT should tell you something. And if it doesn't, maybe you should question just how much you REALLY support and sustain our Constitution and form of government in the first place. You might find that you really do want to live in a country run by a dictator as long as he/she dictates in the political fashion you like. If so, you have the right to think like that, but DON'T try to call yourselves Patriotic Americans who love their country, because that is not what this country is about and never has been. Strong words, but that's how I and Iam sure many many feel about what this current President and Democrats are trying to do.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

What did he say as to the tea party tantrum?

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

Article quote:
“the real problem is not etiquette but the breakdown of constitutional norms.”

And nothing has demonstrated that fact more than the recent government shutdown (over a law that had nothing to do with the annual appropriation process) and some of our elected leaders flirting with national default.

And then Charlie undercuts his entire argument with the following statement:

“Nonetheless, for about 200 years the filibuster was nearly unknown in blocking judicial nominees. So we are really just returning to an earlier norm.”


And then of course we get the requisite clumsy segue to Obamacare – that ever faithful rollout meant to provide prima facie evidence that anything Obama does is flawed or illegitimate.

Oh wait, this article was supposed to be about Senate rules… how did we get to Obama again?

Salt Lake City, UT

The first 190 or so years of US history there were only talking filibusters, not procedural ones. That's why there were so few up until the Carter years and forward, because they would always end within 48 hours and not serve as perpetual barriers.

As for what I'll think of Republicans with this power? I don't care. Democrats rarely filibustered Bush executive and judicial appointees and frankly the party that wins the White House should get to have their people put in. Leaving the filibuster for legislation and Supreme Court nominees is fine with me.

Mr. Bean
Phoenix, AZ

[Tyler D - ...and some of our elected leaders flirting with national default.]

Some day in the not too distant future, the nation will be in default. There's only so much money in the entire world for us to borrow... and we're almost there. And guess what... much of our national debt is the government borrowing from itself. That particular funding trick can't go on forever.

[Tyler D - ... prima facie evidence that anything Obama does is flawed or illegitimate.]

The prima facie evidence so far in Obama's term in the White House confirms that fact. And remember, the evidence seems to point to the scenario that the guy is an illegal immigrant. Some day when the evidence becomes available we will see that he registered at Occidental and Columbia as foreign student Barry Soetoro.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@Mr. Bean – “Some day in the not too distant future, the nation will be in default.”

That may very well be but there are constitutional norms (as Krauthammer says) for dealing with this issue - causing our creditors to question the full faith and credit of the U.S. is not one of the them.

@ Mr. Bean – “The prima facie evidence so far in Obama's term”

You’re misusing the term ‘prima facie,’ but I have little doubt that much of the hatred for this current president is prima facie in nature.

Saint George, UT

The real lack here is not B.O., it is the foolishness and ignorance of those who support him and then will turn around and criticize the next republican president, and then those who are critical of B.O. now who will then wholeheartedly support the next republican president. Both are seeing through rose colored classes without a clue as to how to make a difference to the Republic in which they live. They are both contributing to the current mess by being a part of the charade that presents itself in Washington D.C. The real patriots,mostly silent, are those who haven't handed their minds over to a political party and the Utopian socialists. The independents are the biggest force in America, something that is driving the governing parties crazy. They are represented by the libertarians, the Tea-party, the religious,and any other thinking American that knows the truth and is waiting for a real leader to emerge that won't still everyone's money, come up with phony "fixes" to real problems, and won't lie, steal, and cheat the American people. I guess that about wraps it up doesn't it?

Cedar Hills, UT

Charles is articulate and accurate as always in his analysis of Barack. The heavy influence of "Rules For Radicals" seems to be taking hold of Barack now more than ever as his presidency spirals out of control. Rules For Radicals is the how-to bible for Marxist dictators.

Idaho Falls, ID

Charles invokes the constitution, when filibuster rules are not part of the constitution, they were determined by the Senate. I don't know if this is a good idea or not, but if filibustering by the minority prevents seating of judges, then changes need to be made.

Somewhere in Time, UT

Obama is probably the worst president in history, but he is NOT an illegal immigrant. He was born in Hawaii and his mother was an American Citizen. That makes him an American Citizen. I wish this silly birther stuff would stop. There is so much more to criticize him for that is truly legitimate.

Charles is right on target as always!

freedom in 2017
paradise, UT

There is way too much that is unknown about Barry. What we do know though is that he is willing to do anything to have power, regardless of the constitution. We also know what a mistake it is to elect someone with absolutely no experience in doing anything. Jimmy was bad Barry is worse.

A Guy With A Brain
Enid, OK

Article quote: "Barack Obama may be remembered for something similar. His violation of the proper limits of executive power has become breathtaking. It's not just making recess appointments when the Senate is in session. It's not just unilaterally imposing a law Congress had refused to pass — the DREAM Act — by brazenly suspending large sections of the immigration laws. We've now reached a point where a flailing president, desperate to deflect the opprobrium heaped upon him for the false promise that you could keep your health plan if you wanted to, calls a hasty news conference urging both insurers and the states to reinstate millions of such plans. Except that he is asking them to break the law. His own law."

Hey!, hey!, hey now Charles! Let's not start using facts here! 'Facts' are the very things liberals absolutely refuse to believe exist.

Someday, when all is said and done, it will be revealed with irrefutable power, that Barack Obama was THE worst U.S. president ever.

May that day come soon....

the old switcharoo
mesa, AZ

There's no facts in your facts dude. They followed the senate rules in making a change to the Senate rules!

Recess appointments are also within the senate rules and presidential powers. Bush made plenty of the same plays. You just call them terrible and unconstitutional when the other side does them and that's dishonest!

Hayden, ID

I have often wondered why some people on here who hate Dr, Krauthammer always feel obligated to read his column and never attach what he says but always attack him personally! If a conservative doesn't like what a liberal writes or says, they change the channel or skip the article. Not liberals, they demand any voice that does not agree with their ideology be shouted down, silenced and personally demeaned.

Roy, UT

IMHO, the Republicans in Washington WANTED the Democratic majority to make the changes which were made. In the end, it gives them an opportunity to practice what they do best - complain. I am not sticking up for the Democrats - I don't think that they are any better. There comes a point when the partisan infighting needs to stop and the country needs to be put first.

Imagine if we had some real problems which needed to be addressed by our congress. Our country has faced those issues - 9/11, Pearl Harbor attack, economic collapse, civil war,assassination of presidents, slavery, riots, etc...

If our "leaders" can't even agree on making a budget or appointing a judge, I wonder how they would perform during real problems.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

one vote
Tyler D

Tip O'Neil shut the government down 6 times under Reagan - yet you call the latest shutdown (which was practically begged for by a vindictive and vengeful Obama and Reid) a tea party tantrum

Apparently all it takes for a conservative to be considered evil, is to act mildly like a liberal

Pleasant Grove, UT

@Tyler D "Oh wait, this article was supposed to be about Senate rules… how did we get to Obama again?"

The article was about lawlessness. That's how we got to Obama. He is unilaterally dictating changes to a law passed by Congress, when his constitutional duty is to see that the laws are faithfully executed.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@Counter Intelligence – “Tip O'Neil shut the government down 6 times under Reagan”

Except in those and every other case I can find, the shutdown was always over a budgetary issue (i.e., something part of the annual appropriation process).

What’s unique about the Tea Party tantrum is that it was not… it was simply about a law they hate.

If Tip O’Neil would have shut down the government over, say, his desire to have the Reagan tax cuts repealed (or delayed to keep the analogy relevant) than your analogy would hold.

@Nate – “He is unilaterally dictating changes to a law passed by Congress…”

I think most people (outside the right-wing bubble) are untroubled by this because they see these changes as largely administrative meant to make the transition smoother.

And let’s be honest – we all know Obama is going to get zero help from congress in making sure the implementation goes well. If anything, congress will spend as much time as possible trying to gum up the works.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments