Comments about ‘Constitutional expert: U.S. is at 'constitutional tipping point'’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Feb. 28 2014 3:00 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Harrison Bergeron
Holladay , UT

"So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause." -Padmé Amidala

I guess she was wrong. It dies without a whimper...

Anti Government
Alpine, UT

This is just what obama wanted from the start. He thinks he and his enlightened liberal ilk should be able to decide on a whim what the rules are.

What is just as pathetic is all the rest of the govt on both sides of the isle who just stand by and let it happen without accountability.

I sure wish people would realize that partisan politicians have successfully divided and conquered us. We are too busy fighting with the other side to realize Rome is burning, so to speak.

We would all be better off to get organize and literally vote out every single elected federal politician over the next two election cycles. Every one of them needs to go.

Only then could we send some new people there who actually believed they would/could be held accountable.

They have us right where they want us now. We all fight and scrap over a few points either way which means the vast majority of them get to stay term after term....and we all are the ones that have to suffer the consequences of the horrid economic and social conditions of our govt inflicts on us.

End it.

San Francisco, CA

Almost two and a half centuries ago, a shabby bunch of rabble-rousers gathered, "their flag to April's breeze unfurled" and "fired the shot heard 'round the world" to free themselves from the tyranny of a monarchy with all power over all humans exercised by a single individual.

The legacy these rabble-rousers left us was the U.S. Constitution, an inspired document that codifies the rights AND the responsibilities of the people and their government; the relationship between federal and state governments; the assurance that no one branch or individual should abuse their power and prevail over the others; and the principle that government is not the master of the people but the servant.

As far back as the Old Testament book of 1 Samuel, the people are warned about the risks of having a king. A crowned monarch can be dangerous—how much more so a de facto king who simply takes it on himself to appropriate powers rightfully vested elsewhere?

Durham, NC

Just perhaps, if what is claimed is true, this is more a result not of over action by one of the three legs of government, but the near and total abdication of responsibility by the legislative side. What we have witnessed is a government not divided by ideology, but by extreme partisan politics, the politics of obstruction. When there is a vacuum of any kind, the laws of nature say that vacuum must be replaced by something.

The same thing with poor parenting. If parents refuse to do their job, kids will look to other reference points for direction. What we need less of is people finding reasons not to do things, and find more people willing to work towards solutions, even if dong so means working with non like minded people, and compromising.

What we see here is not a case of over action, but the results of the vacuum caused by inaction.


I'm just wondering. If congress is totally polarized and unable to act on anything significant should the executive, whichever party he belongs to, or the courts just sit on their hands and do nothing? Is this unhealthy expansion of power in both the executive and judiciary the blame of the congress?

boneheaded, but not a smidgen

Why does this come as a surprise? Barry is a community organizer, NOT a constitutional expert, though he claims to be one.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

I agree...

I disagree with the way President Obama does things more than I do what he is doing. Same for President Bush.


Obama_fans keep saying anybody who doesn't like everything President Obama does... wants a Civil War.

I disagree two ways.

#1. They don't WANT any war.

#2. If there is a conflict, it would not be a Civil War (part of the country against the other). It would be a Revolutionary War (replacing corrupt government with a Constitutional Government). That's not a civil war... it's a revolution.

And I think it would be an intellectual war (not a war of guns). A war of ideas (not of violence). It would be fought on the battle field of ideas (not with guns).

So join me on the battle field of ideas. It doesn't always have to be, stay in line... no disagreement with the government is allowed... and whatever the government does is for our own good... we can disagree and not be offended (at least I can).

I don't think I'm "right". I just have an opinion I'm gonna put out there. And want to hear other's opinions.

Ed Grady
Idaho Falls, ID

Relax dudes, if this country can survive 8 years of George W Bush, it can survive anything. By the way, what president signed the Patriot Act? You remember that wonderful piece of unconstitutional legislation don't you? That was the act where Americans agreed to give up their Right to Privacy and freedom from Unreasonable Search and Seizure in the name of protection from terrorists.

t-ville, UT

This article is high on rhetoric, short on specifics. I can understand the fear of an overstepping president, but in what regard has Obama overstepped his constitutional authority?

Mark from Montana
Davis County, UT

Is Obama exceeding his authority? Most certainly he is, just as Bush did and Clinton did to varying degrees. It is much worse with Obama, but there is a reason for it.

Power loves a vacuum and when Congress refuses, or is unable, to do their job, to fulfill their responsibilities, the other branches step in to fill the vacuum. Congress must start doing their job, at the same time pushing back against the executive branch. If they don't Obama will do more and more, setting more precedents. The next president, regards of it being a liberal or conservative, will just go down the same path.

The day of restraint being shown by a political leader is long gone.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

Nothing is identified just an unsupported opinion.

Hans Delbruck
Spokane, WA

slcdenizen: "in what regard has Obama overstepped his constitutional authority?"

On the one hand, he has refused to implement the AHCA as it was written and passed by his own party and signed into law by himself, choosing instead to delay implementation without legal authority to do so. On the other hand, he increasingly governs by executive order, bypassing the authority of Congress, even declaring that, as President, he "gets to do what he wants."

He has a well-documented reputation for refusing to nurture relationships in Congress, not just with the opposition party, in order to craft compromise legislation and policy that will gain majority support. Our country has a long history of such compromise and collaboration between the President and Congress; his refusal to even engage on a regular basis is arrogant and inexcusable.

This President is the most inept, least qualified and most disinterested President since at least Warren G. Harding. I have no problem with the Democratic Party vigorously promoting their policies; I do have a problem with them foisting on us an obviously unqualified candidate to be their standard bearer. Many of us on the conservative side had similar views towards G.W. Bush.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

In my opinion there are two executive orders that dwarf all others in audacity: Number one would be the Emancipation Proclamation by Abraham Lincoln. Second would be Richard Nixon's order severing the link between the dollar and gold, abolishing the Bretton Woods agreement that had been the foundation of international finance since WWII, and simultaneously putting the entire country on wage and price controls.

Nothing Obama has done comes remotely close to those two.

Farmington, UT

The void we see is a void of leadership on the part of President Obama. As Hans accurately points out, a key responsibility of the President is to provide leadership for the legislative process, to build relationships on both sides of the aisle, to build bridges between and lead both sides forward to compromise for the good of the country. Our current President, in spite of campaign promises, has almost completely ignored Congress for both of his terms. His idea of leadership is to tell Congress that if they don't do what he wants, he will act unilaterally by ignoring them and ruling by executive order. Seriously? That is leadership? Heaven forbid he should have to roll us his sleeves and do the real work of gaining consensus in order to have a plan all can stand behind and support, yet THAT is what it takes to do the job.

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

For all those who are comparing Obama with Bush and saying that Bush did the same or that Obama is only doing what Bush did, remember this. Bush was a Texas Republican. So who is surprised? Obama says he is a progressive from a progressive party. He should know better. In fact, he does know better. He just isn't doing it.b Disappointing Democrats.

With regards to the point that congress isn't doing their job so he is getting around the Constitution because he needs to do it to save the country. When dictators or military juntas overthrow constitutions they justify it by sayng that they had to do it to save the country from chaos.

It goes back to my 4th grade teacher, "What would happen if everyone did that?"

Thid Barker
Victor, ID

50 years ago our federal government used to fear the people (voters). Today the people fear the government: IRS abuses, NSA spying, arbitrary law enforcement by the White House, lies, stonewalling and cover-ups, fiscal incompetence and the unconstitutional, unaccountable executive privileges. I for one do not even recognize my country any more! We look more like N. Korea and Cuba everyday! We have a opportunity to take back our country and force the federal government to fear voters again in November. I pray Americans will take back their power and put the new aristocracy in Washington DC in its place!

Durham, NC

The thing is… he isn't going around the constitution. The president has the power to manage the affairs of government… he is the executive. Why is that so hard to understand. The legislature gives him his rules and parameters to do that job. If they are not providing direction, he is at will to do administer the government as he sees fit. Pure and simple.

The Supreme Court is responsible…. not people with opinions…. but the Supreme Court decides if he is doing that job within the confines of the rules set out for him/her by the legislature. If the Supreme Court finds no issue, then the President is playing by the rules and guidelines provided him or her.

If you don't like what the president is doing, or how the president is executing the laws as established by the legislature, then it is the legislature's job to provide better directives and boundaries. If congress fails to provide structure, then they get what they have created. This divided congress spends too much time on extremes, granting Obama much latitude to do what he wants.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

To Hans Delbruk: Even though you are a scientist and a saint, you are still wrong on this. It is now well known that in Jan. 2009, on the day that the president was inaugurated, the Republican leadership held a meeting wherein they decided that the way they were going to deal with Obama was to try to make him fail at everything he attempted. No matter what he proposed, they would be opposed, even if it was something they had previously supported.

How is he supposed to work with an opposition party like that? On several budget deals, he has given them the majority of what they ask for, but the answer is always "NO".

Saint George, UT

Roland Kaiser: thank you for history lesson; makes me want to read about those two 'executive orders'. However, I think it is obvious to any observer that something is indeed amiss with the executive office and it's powers and it didn't begin with Obama. Obama, however, has blatantly misused the power of his office and the legislative branch has turned into a whimpering hollow shell of its duties and responsibilities, including checking any president from unbridled power and tyrannical expression of it?

Salt Lake City, UT

The worst and most recent example of presidential imperialism was the Iraq War. Using public hysteria as a backdrop one guy or two guys (Bush and Cheney) decided to invade a country under false pretenses - with an eventual bill of $3 billion). That's the act we have to beat. There's no sign it has been beaten.

to comment

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