Quantcast

Comments about ‘Dan Liljenquist: President Obama has become a constitutional squatter’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, July 3 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Bob K
Davis, CA

Somewhere in this article, the writer more or less admits that the President is trying to act, while the House has done nothing constructive whatever. However the basic tone is "How dare he try to accomplish for America what he thinks is right, when Congress shirks its duty?"

It seems the DN has no care for truth, quality of writing, or fairness, when it gets the chance to publish yet another tawdry derision of the President of the United States.

Where is the respect for the people that elected him in 2 landslides?

Where is the respect for the Office and for the USA?

Where is the respect for what Jesus said about loving our fellow men?

And where is the respect for fighting a clean and fair fight, rather than descending to bashing, half-truths, and rather smarmy innuendo?

Is the DN again affirming that the do-nothing, obstructionist Congress is just fine?

ordinaryfolks
seattle, WA

Oh gad, the sky is not falling.

When Bush or any other Republican President abuses his power, it is all okay with Tea Party Republicans. When Obama exerts his powers, it is dictatorship. The author would have a lot more credibility if he turned off his hyper-partisanship.

Abuse of power is indeed a problem that exists in federal government, and indeed, in some states governments. It should be dealt with. However, to assert as the author implicitly does that it begins with Obama is ridiculous, and he loses authority in whispering so.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

I took my family to see Dinesh D'Souza's ‘America’ last night. I urge all Americans to see it and think for yourselves about America, Barrack Obama and the constitution.

Joan Watson
TWIN FALLS, ID

Could not agree more.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Dan is correct. We have a Constitution. Article 1 Section 1 grants ALL legislative authority to Congress. The Executive and Judicial branches have NO authority to legislate. That means that Obama cannot legislate without breaking the Supreme Law of the Land. That also means that federal judges cannot legislate from the bench. The President is in violation and some federal judges are in violation.

The remedy is to elect Representatives that will impeach and Senators who will convict.

A rogue President will destroy this nation. He has already told us that me must buy health insurance. That is not a responsibility of the Federal Government. He has told business owners that they must pay for pills that cause an abortion. That is not in the Constitution. He has failed to implement laws, as written, and has changed laws (legislation) to suit himself.

The people are represented by the House. The States are represented by the Senate. The President is oath bound to enforce laws passed by Congress.

His popularity with the people is not a factor in his authority or his duties.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@Bob K: Is always better to do "nothing" than always doing wrong, destructive things. Incidentally, if congress is "obstructing" Obama, how did we ever get Obamacare (including all the illegal changes), higher taxes, the destruction of the DOMA, troops sent to Iraq, open borders with millions of illegal aliens coming in, doubling the food stamp recipients, doubling the national debt, record high energy and food prices, etc., etc.? According to recent polls, most Americans wish congress WOULD obstruct Obama, period!

HaHaHaHa
Othello, WA

Is this the same obama that was just voted worst president since WWII? Now it's starting to all make sense. Of course with this guy and his worshipers, it's all everybody else's fault. Nobody else is standing on their principles...ONLY the anointed one.

Esquire
Springville, UT

This piece is such nonsense. I have three decades of experience in this area, and I can assure you that Obama is doing exactly what the Republicans believe in. I watched first hand when there was an overreach by a prior President (pre-Bush), who disregarded the law, and the GOP openly stated their views that they believed in strong executive authority. The Republicans in Congress cheered on the action, even though it was by a President of the other party and refused to act. The matter went to the courts, and a Republican judge found for the President, and the Republican panel of the Court of Appeals upheld the decision. The only difference between then and now is the hatred that the Republicans have for the current President. Why the hatred? In large part because he emerged so quickly and eclipsed the status quo. But that's a story for another day. The writer of this piece should see more of inside Washington before writing such a work of fiction.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

The Constitution provides Congress with two remedies: the power of the purse, and impeachment. Obama's illegal activities should be defunded. If the Senate stands in the way, we have an opportunity this year to do elect different Senators.

If Obama continues to break the law, he should be impeached. He is a president, not a king.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

Oh, come on Dan. You're being hysterical and your ideology is in the way. You know very well that all executives everywhere cherry pick which laws to enforce because their resources are limited and they have their priorities.

You're like Herbert. He whines that he has to "enforce every law" when plainly he doesn't; otherwise the the 10,000 or so polygamists in Utah would all be in jail by now.

You don't like Obama's executive actions because you don't like his ideology. Period. If it were Reagan or Bush (who had a field day with their executive powers) you would be sleeping peacefully. And we all know it, including you. So calm down.

kiddsport
Fairview, UT

@Esquire-
Your reply lacks substance because it lacks specificity: which president? which law was disregarded? Who took it to court? Oh, and by the way, it was a Democrat president, right?
The big difference I see in the parties is there are many more Republicans who will denounce the poor decisions of presidents like Bush (I and II) than Democrats who will even come close to casting a shadow of an aspersion on the likes of Clinton or Obama. Look around and see if that is not so. Although with Obama, even some Democrats are beginning to rue the day he was elected, again.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

@kiddsport

I've never heard a single repub criticize the chosen one, bush. In fact, Cheney is still being interviewed as some sort of credible leader on foxnews. Rove is a regular!

If conservatives really wanted to show disapproval for Bush then they would separate themselves from bush and his administration. Not continually give them a soapbox.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

The doctrine of selective enforcement has been around for a long time, and to presume that this is a new or changed is absurd. Every day in every court house District Attorneys plea down charges to less than the actual act in an effort of expediency. While many view government as being over funded, the reality that the cost of actual enforcement of every law is cost prohibitive. Therefor you most pick and choose those that have the highest value, and trim down or reduce efforts in other areas.

Besides plea bargins, a typical tool of prosecutors is to over charge a suspect - as a negotiating point to get the most aggressive deal for the state.

What needs to be separated is the politics, rhetoric, and actual acts. This piece is simply more pandering rhetoric. A true officer of the court would know what is being asked and claimed here are not supported by the reality of the current system we have.

@Kiddsport... how about this

which president? Reagan

which law was disregarded? Many

Who took it to court? The Attorney General - 21 of Reagan's staff were convicted.

GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

Wow! Liljenquist is really getting tough (or something) with his commentary.

It's amazing that in the minds of "Conservatives," Obama can simultaneously be a weak President, AND the Genghis Khan of Presidents, ruthlessly having his way with Congress before he cast them aside and leaves them whimpering.

And no Dan, I'm pretty sure that English common law does not give squatters rights in Congress to barbarian conquerors like Obama.

So you think Congress should sue Obama huh? Doesn't it even bother you that there is no earthly means by which that can happen? In order to sue Obama, Congress would first have to change the law with a bill that would have to be approved by the Democratic Senate and then be signed by Obama.

How likely is that?

"Conservative pundits" are quite amazing these days. Is all their lurching, lashing out, and fantasizing symptomatic of the fact that they're beginning to realize the ridiculous ideology they espouse is completely unrealistic?

Whatever the problem, I hope they resolve it.

The Republican policy of obstructionism, and political terrorism against America and the American people is hurting Republicans too, you know.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Congress is useless. Someone has to get something done. If president obama is actually (and not rhetorically) overstepping, hold him accountable.

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

I suppose it's inevitable when you have a Congress that is the most ineffective in history that the president feels obligated to have government do something to deal with the issues the Republican House refuses to address. What we really need is a thorough House cleaning in Washington. If Boehner and his obstructionists would start legislating instead of posturing, the president would likely pull back to what has become a more normal mode of executing the law.

Esquire
Springville, UT

@ kiddsport, you want the case name? Swan v. Clinton. You should read the decision. Would you like me to send you the trial court and appellate court decisions? Of course, that won't address the backstory, to which I allude. As one with very close ties to DC in various ways, I know of no Democrat that rues the day Obama was elected. That's just partisanship on your part. The Republicans never quit in expressing their hatred. They need to accept that there were two elections and get over it. Start thinking about 2016. Obama isn't going anywhere until his term is up. Republicans should try to be constructive for a change. They certainly haven't been for six years. I guess the interests of the country are subordinate to other interests. Instead of calling it public service, Republicans should call it special interest service. By the way, where is your substance?

Schnee
Salt Lake City, UT

He's used the second fewest executive orders since WWII.

Richie
Saint George, UT

We have a big problem here and few of the comments have really addressed it. We have a president that's a puppet for Valerie Jarret. We have a Senate led by Harry (the wimp) Reid who blocks anything the house of Representatives wants to do and we have John Boehner who is in over his head. We have an election in November and the conservatives in both houses of Congress must take over and impeach our Dictator. It would be nice if the all read the Constitution first and followed that beautiful document. Oh by the way, how about term limitation for Congress.

PP
Eagle Mountain, UT

What is funny to me is all the obama supporters claiming that President Bush did it too. If this is correct, and you criticized President Bush then you are being hypocritical for not holding obama to the same standard.

But the truth is, Bush went to congress and got approval for everything he did. In other words he did not break the law. obama has circumvented congress at every opportunity and has been corrected by the supreme court dramatically.

So basically, despite the rhetoric Bush did not actually break any laws and was accused incessantly. obama has broken many and the same people that falsely accused Bush are either silent or defending the law breaking.

Is that irony?

to comment

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