Topic of the day: President Obama's 'lawless' administration

Return To Article
Add a comment
    Feb. 6, 2014 2:50 p.m.


    I don't disagree with that but I would take it a step further and add heaping criticism justifies the other acting-n-kind, its time for both sides to drop the temperature on the rhetoric and get the work done.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 1:30 p.m.

    LDS Liberal,
    I'm glad to see some people who aren't radical right-wingers (like most people would characterize me) also condemn this over-reach. That's what I was looking for. Some consistency. That's refreshing.

    I also agree that if you criticize Obama's overreach, you should have criticized Bush's expansion of executive power too (and I think most "Conservatives" did, however, most "Republicans" didn't). I hardly consider Bush to be a "Conservative". But he was definitely a "Republican".


    I don't see many people criticizing Obama and 100% supporting Bush now days. Do you?

    I know there's some, but not many. Both sides tend to see only what their biases will let them see about the other side. That's why it feels so good to not have a side sometimes.

    Both sides have their "partisan hacks", who only see the problems the other side has (and is blind to their own) without showing an ounce of integrity.

    IMO this trend of expansion of executive power, and diminishing Congress to the level of a debate club... started LONG ago (not with Obama).

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 12:15 p.m.

    2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT

    Centerville, UT


    I have no problem condeming Obama on his over-reach
    not keeping his campaign promises,
    and political shennanigans.
    And have done so MANT times on the boards...

    Where I drawn the line and show my outrage,
    is with the dis-ingenuous radical right - who STILL stick up for GWBush 100%,
    and attack and ridicule Pres. Obama 100%.

    Partisan hacks,
    without showing an ounce of integrity.

    BTW -- I never have voted for Pres. Obama,
    I am unaffiliated,
    and actually voted for a Mormon Repulbican for POTUS -- I voted for Jon M. Huntsman Jr.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 12:10 p.m.

    RE: "the GOP congress has taken obstructionism to a lever never before seen"....

    Where were you during the Bush years??

    Remember Democrat Senators campaign to DE-Fund the wars (after Congress voted in favor of the resolution to begin military action in Iraq)???

    If THAT's not obstructionism (pulling our troops funding during a war you voted to start)... I don't know what is.


    It was just as bad back then (excepting the brief period after 9/11 when both sides cooperated for a few months).

    The Democrat campaign to defund the war (lead by John Kerry) was just as obstructionist, and just as subversive to the President, as the TeaParty trying to de-fund ObamaCare.

    If you dismiss the obstructionism that happened back then, and only see the obstruction that's going on now... you are not "independent". You are seeing things through the coolaid filled lenses of a died in the wool Democrat (who can accept no criticism of Obama, only Bush).

    At least GOP obstructed something they opposed from the start. Democrats approved the war and THEN turned and tried to defund it (to embarrass, hinder, and weaken Bush).

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 6, 2014 10:56 a.m.

    OK 2bits. I am typically branded as being "on the left" by virtue that I am not solidly on the right.

    So, I will condemn Obama for his overreach. I completely agree that he has made the decision to bypass congress, which is not a good thing.

    My my, it is nice being an independent. It makes it so easy to blast left or right when they do wrong.

    That said, and please do not take this as justification, but the GOP congress (primarily the house) has taken obstructionism to a lever never before seen.

    2 wrongs are still wrong. However, if this level of obstructionism becomes the norm for congress, look for presidential overreach to reach new heights as a way of governing.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 10:38 a.m.

    2 Bits,

    You are spot on.

    Obama sympathizers fail to recognize that during the Bush years they were highly critical of anything and everything he did. Now Obama does things similarly, and in some cases much worse, but they cheer him on.

    They fail to recognize the hypocrisy of their support.

    I agree with you. Bush weakened Congress and our country in many ways. Obama cannot justify the things he is doing based upon the poor things Bush did. Nor can Obama supporters justify Obama's failings because Bush also failed.

    Lets aim for higher expectations and performance from our presidents and Congress.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 9:30 a.m.

    I do not think that two wrongs make a right. I'm not a Bush fan. I think he made many mistakes.

    But I get tired of the Obama-fans who think Obama is the first President to ever be criticized, and if you do criticize anything he does... you're a racist.

    Bush got the same criticisms (and rightly so IMO). Bush did weaken Congress (not a good thing, because they are the voice of the people).

    What I'm trying to say is... Bush's mistakes don't make it OK for Obama to say Congress is irrelevant because he can do anything he wants by Executive Order if he wants.

    And I'd like to see SOME of the same people on the Left who criticized Bush on this... to be consistent and criticize Obama when HE expands executive power and acts unilaterally.

  • 1covey Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    As for "Dick": wrong as he was, at least he did not follow FDR's use of the FBI to spy on the opposition. Compare Lincoln's use of executive order with Obama's. Emancipation compared to ACA or political appointees? It would be difficult for Congress, with it's divided loyalties to override the President; but, it should try. Taking the appointees made by President Obama without Congressional approval, even though Congress was in session, was taken to the Supreme Court- that was a good action.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 5, 2014 7:05 p.m.

    "So don't pretend it's only Obama who has expanded executive power, or that it's just Republicans that complain about it. The exact same things were happening (just with the roles reversed) when Bush was in office."

    Completely agree 2Bits. This is, unfortunately, how partisan politics.

    Side one does something, side 2 complains. Side 2 does the same thing and side one complains.

    Thank you for calling it what it is.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 6:10 p.m.

    Our system is set up to be slow. We have checks and balances that will slow down political, legal, civil, institutional, etc. progress.

    But just because it is slow does not mean Obama can ignore the separation of powers and issue executive orders. He is required to work with Congress, who writes & passes the laws. Obama signs them.

    If voters become frustrated or disaffected enough then they will vote into power a party that can control Congress and the White House. Then things move along more quickly.

    Democrats had that opportunity when Obama first took office. They controlled the White House, the Senate, and the House. They rammed Obamacare down our throats because they had the power to do so. Americans have since voted for divided government. Republicans control the House, which slows things down. If voters want to change those dynamics, they could give the House back to Democrats and then Obama could move his agenda along, or voters may keep things as they are, or voters may give Republicans the Senate. Its up to voters.

    Its not up to the president to write law though.

  • Dragline Orem, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 4:33 p.m.

    No one had a problem with Bush 43 saying he was "the decider"? At least W had congress working with him to some degree. Obama has no choice but to go it alone when all Republicans decided to say NO to anything he does.
    Maybe it's the fact that this congress is the true "do-nothing" congress in terms of bills passed and days worked. We need to see what happens this year in the election. Maybe we can get a congress that cares about its constituency.

    Feb. 5, 2014 4:29 p.m.

    So know that you finally concede that Obama has not used the executive orders more frequently then past presidents, here are is a very small sampling of the less controversial orders by the last three republican presidents. Please explain to us how these are any less by passing congress and “passing laws” then when Obama has done so. George W Bush, Executive Order, Adjustments of Certain Rates of Pay, George Bush, Executive Order, Civil Justice Reform, Ronald Reagan, Executive Order, Prohibiting Trade and Certain Transactions Involving Libya. Time to stop the hyperbole and explain the difference.


    I will concede to your point if you will agree that two wrongs do not make a right.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 4:17 p.m.

    Before somebody makes the "Bush did it first" argument... Bush did get the same criticism. He was accused by Democrats of "expand executive power more than any President", "acting unilateral", "ignoring the Constitution", "not consulting Congress enough", etc. I've seen all these complaints in these DMN comment pages (just 6 years ago).

    So don't pretend it's only Obama who has expanded executive power, or that it's just Republicans that complain about it. The exact same things were happening (just with the roles reversed) when Bush was in office.

    Feb. 5, 2014 3:46 p.m.

    So I am still waiting for someone to give us something other then hyperbole of exactly how Obama's executive orders (which are fewer then Bush jr, only three more then bush senior int he same time period and far less then reagan) are any different then past presidents.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 3:35 p.m.

    Even Jonathon Turley, a highly respected constitutional law professor and liberal Democrat, has stated that Obama's is the most imperial presidency in history.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Feb. 5, 2014 3:32 p.m.

    patriot isn't quite right on today's accusation. There was a law breaker in the White House, and Congress came around to finally knowing it. But his name wasn't Barry, Harry or Larry. It was Dick. If the country was "lost", whatever that means, at least we got it back, and with the help of a few Republicans.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 2:17 p.m.

    If Obama wanted to be a lawmaker, he should have stayed in the Senate. The president's duty is to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 2:09 p.m.

    Instead of complaining about Barack breaking the law just stop the man. If he is breaking the law by by-passing congress then just issue a STOP order. It almost seems like working with congress is a choice the president has..or not. If it is a choice then blame our constitution for not making it a LAW. If it is a LAW then the man can't choose to break the law anymore than I can choose not to pay my taxes. If I choose not to pay my taxes I go to jail. Barack Obama is a radical that cares nothing for the law and will push the boundaries until someone stops him...then he will complain and cry that he is being treated unfairly. I would dare say there has never been a man in the Oval Office like this law breaker.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Feb. 5, 2014 1:56 p.m.

    Has any one read any of the orders. Scarey. Has any of them been in the news. That's the scariest.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Feb. 5, 2014 1:43 p.m.

    "Time will tell if Obama’s executive orders, that have given might to a constitutional push against him, will end up hurting democrats in the next election." If this issue, the struggling economy, the scandals and the Obamacare mess don't un-elect democrats, then truly, we have lost our country!