Published: Thursday, July 3 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
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
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.
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.
Could not agree more.
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.
@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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
@kiddsportI'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.
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 thiswhich president? Reaganwhich law was disregarded? ManyWho took it to court? The
Attorney General - 21 of Reagan's staff were convicted.
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.
Congress is useless. Someone has to get something done. If president obama is
actually (and not rhetorically) overstepping, hold him accountable.
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
@ 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?
He's used the second fewest executive orders since WWII.
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
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
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments