The president's taking the oath of office is not an antiquated formality

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    Jan. 21, 2013 9:45 p.m.

    "Obama is the person best suited to lead the executive branch of government." Really? You editors actually believe that. What is the basis for such an opinion? Just because?

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Jan. 21, 2013 8:38 a.m.

    There is absolutely nothing that our current President can do, and I mean nothing whatsoever, that any tea party (irrational) Republican will find acceptable. Not one thing. Ever. There is an irrational hatred that cannot see anything but what it wants/expects to see, and that is all 100% bad. It is irrational, but that's just the way it is.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 20, 2013 9:50 p.m.

    "If President Bush or any other president had done this (issued executive orders) there would have been "heck" to pay."

    Kosimov, if you actually took two minutes to do any research you would find that you are extremely misinformed. Reagan issued 381 executive orders; H.W. Bush, 166; Clinton, 364; W. Bush, 291; and so far, Obama, 146 executive orders.

    Sorry, you are misinformed on this issue. You probably believed that bogus chain e-mail that claimed the president had issued over 900 executive orders. Just some advise, it's best not to just believe everything that shows up in your inbox. Oh, by the way, did you raise "heck" when President Reagan issued his large number of executive orders? Or when President W. Bush did?

    Also, sorry, but you are just as misinformed when you claim that Republican ideas were not used in the ACA. It was initially their plan for Pete's sake. (I couldn't find an instance of Republicans being locked out of the room during debates on the health care act. Care to provide your source?)

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    Jan. 20, 2013 6:53 p.m.

    Obama ran a dishonest and negative campaign against Mitt Romney and was able to use nearly unlimited resources to get his voters to the polls and win. This was accomplished with hundreds of millions of dollars from unions and leftwing groups.Since his narrow election Obama has continued to act like he is still in the campaign and not the president of all the people. He has polarized the country, relentlessly attacked the Republican House literally mocking it for not giving him powers the constitution says rests with Congress. It is time for Barack Obama to lead and represent all the people in this country not just his supporters.

  • kargirl Sacramento, CA
    Jan. 20, 2013 6:06 p.m.

    This so-called article is a comment waiting for a board to post on. Where is the reporting here? For a moment, in the first paragraph or two, I thought I saw some, and then realized it was the warm-up to a punch in the President's face on Inauguration Day. It is unfortunate that a faction from the Republican party decided to make their primary objective for the President's first term making sure he had only one term as President rather than working at solving the problems in the country, and serving the citizens who hired them to do so. It is sadder yet that they obstructed both members of their own party and others in Congress who wanted to do the work of the people from doing so. The President, as those who paid attention noticed, certainly would have worked with them, and his signature piece of legislation had been one of their own ideas. I hope this time there is a new spirit, because there are too many good people of both parties who voted in good faith for these folks to represent them, to care about their lives, and they deserve that.

  • dogchow1 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 20, 2013 4:48 p.m.

    You have to say the right words, but apparently you don't have to mean it.

  • DougS Oakley, UT
    Jan. 20, 2013 3:13 p.m.

    In fact, the "Oath" is largely ignored by the person taking it as well as the public. Since there appears to be no "enforcement" provisions, why is the Oath still relevant?

  • kosimov Riverdale, UT
    Jan. 20, 2013 2:44 p.m.

    Dear Furry1993: It is the function of Congress to serve as a "check and balance", that is, to stop some things from happening (check) and present or approve of things which should happen (balance). For example, the Republicans were literally, physically locked out of the room in Congress where the Democrats met to create Obamacare, and their ideas and criticisms were similarly prevented from being considered in that act. Now, you criticize the Republicans for not working with Obama and the Democrats. What is the difference between the two? To me, the ONLY difference is that Democrats are "in power" with Obama supporting their agenda completely. The Republicans have no power, or that is, no way to force their will upon others. I don't see how there can be any other outcome for this situation than what we now have.

    I recall that about 12 or so years ago, when a hotly contested election went against the Democrats, the entire country "chose up sides", and citizens began hateful, partisan fighting which has only gotten worse since then. Until that situation is remedied, I can't see how we can work our way out of the trouble we are in.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Jan. 20, 2013 2:17 p.m.

    More vitriol from the radical right.

    Since... Bashing Obama has worked soooooooooooooooooo well for them the past few years. I mean, just look at how well the last election went...

  • kosimov Riverdale, UT
    Jan. 20, 2013 1:54 p.m.

    No excuse is good enough to justify breaking the law or ignoring the Constitution. Regardless of his motives, Obama has repeatedly ignored provisions of the Constitution by issuing Executive Orders in quantities hard to believe! He has used the Executive Order to bypass the checks and balances deliberately designed into the government by the founding fathers, specifically to prevent the kind of Presidential usurping of power Obama is becoming noted for. If President Bush or any other president had done this there would have been "heck" to pay. The whole point behind the Constitutional system is that it is supposed to force both parties to have to compromise and work together. Even if Congress makes the mistake of trying to pressure Obama out of the White House by refusing to compromise, that does NOT justify the President simply forcing his policies and laws by executive order. The President often seems to have no intention of working with Republicans, but goes through the formalities of pretending to, then issuing a flurry of executive orders to get what he wants. If this continues, we will find over five thousand executive orders on the books by 2016! Isn't that abuse?`q12

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 20, 2013 1:24 p.m.

    Voted for him in 2008.

    Voted for him in 2012.

    President Obama won, both times.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 20, 2013 12:16 p.m.

    Thank you Deseret News for a well thought, well written editorial.

    Too often we neglect to remember that the President serves the people and that he is accountable to the people to do those things entrusted to him and only those thing enumerated in the Constitution.

    Too often we neglect to remember that he has sworn an oath to God to execute the duties of his office properly and with all diligence.

    Too often we neglect to remember that there are other level of government that may be charged with handling most of the duties that are too large for individuals to handle.

    Too often we neglect to remember that we are responsible for ourselves, for our families, and for those who are near and dear to us; that we are charged by our Creator to care and keep each other through the bonds of love, not under the threat of the sword wielded by a powerful government.

    President Obama is well educated. He knows his duty. Let us all hold ourselves accountable to see that he does his job properly and with proper respect to the office that we have entrusted to him.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Jan. 20, 2013 9:43 a.m.

    President Obama is a constitutional scholar. It think he understands well this constitutionally mandated obligations and limitations. This obviously politically motiveted editorial is preaching to the choir, mostly the Republican choir.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Jan. 20, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    If the DesNews wants to criticize some of the President's actions, it should be remembered WHY he had to do what he did -- the fact that only did the far right Republicans refuse to neogitiate with him or work with him, much less compromise with him, they did so because of a specifically stated intent to make him fail so they would be able to take over the White House in the 2012 elections (and to heck with the country in the process -- the last is my comment). Their shenanigans failed . . . thankfully . . . and they lost seats in Congress in the process -- the only reason they have a majority in the House is because of gerrymandering. It is now time for them to step up and do what is best for the country - work WITH the President and not against anything he wants to do.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Jan. 20, 2013 8:03 a.m.

    In my experience, those who gauge their actions on what is legal without any concern for what is ethical, tend to eventually cross over the line and end up breaking the law. That was the case with the Bush administration, that seems to be the case for the Obama administration.

    When will they ever learn?