Published: Saturday, March 1 2014 7:27 a.m. MST
"So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause." -Padmé
AmidalaI guess she was wrong. It dies without a whimper...
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.
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
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?
Why does this come as a surprise? Barry is a community organizer, NOT a
constitutional expert, though he claims to be one.
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.
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
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
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.
Nothing is identified just an unsupported opinion.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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!
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.
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
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?
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
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments