Dan Liljenquist: President Obama has become a constitutional squatter

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Jimmytheliberal Salt Lake City, UT
    July 6, 2014 4:39 p.m.

    @Bob K...Sir may I say an absolute spot on excellent post. Bravo! Could not have stated it any better myself. Many thanks.

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    July 5, 2014 7:41 p.m.

    This is an accurate and timely article. Obama has clearly taken power from Congress and has not followed the constitution. He has really been much like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela taking money(taxes) from one group, middle class,and distributing it to others with food stamps, housing,welfare. He has not been willing to reach across the isle and compromise to do what is best for the country. He has been the most divisive president in my lifetime.Setting group against group and attacking his opponents. Obama has been the least transparent president refusing to cooperate in IRS,Fast and Furious,and other scandals.

  • A Quaker Brooklyn, NY
    July 5, 2014 5:16 p.m.

    This article, and others like it, are little more than sedition, plain and simple. It's one thing to protest policies or advocate for other policies, but it's entirely another thing to try to incite an overthrow of a legitimately elected government. And, that's exactly what those who are bitter about losing the last election are spending their time doing.

    Pro tip: If you actually manage to disillusion Americans with their government, you'll drive down the participation level in elections, and we'll end up with nothing but the radicals who can command a committed following winning elections, both right wing and left wing.

    If, like me, you want a moderate and sane government, we need to convince everyone that voting is a civic duty, and to look beyond the noise for substance. Voting is not only an American right, it's an American's duty. Our government should be treated like the precious possession it is, not something to be despised because we don't like whoever won the last election. Articles like this just poison the discourse.

  • PP Eagle Mountain, UT
    July 5, 2014 3:54 p.m.

    ---"Sorry I had a link to Pres Bush's 750 broken laws but in wouldn't post with it."---

    I have read the list - have you? There is actually not anything on the list that is actually law breaking - and there are a lot of things on the list that are 100% within the presidents power. It is mostly a list of sour grapes by those that did not like Bush. Circumstantial evidence is provided by the current overwhelming decisions by the SC against Obama and no matching decisions against Bush.

    If Bush had tried to do the tings Obama has done he would not have survived all 8 years in office.

  • Cincinnatus Kearns, UT
    July 5, 2014 1:08 p.m.

    What Dan gave us here was a master class in rhetoric, full of loaded language- “a Constitutional squatter,” “a full-blown constitutional crisis,” “Julius Caesar {taking] full control of the Roman Empire.” This is just hyper-partisanship, no better than people like James “we’re right, they’re wrong” Carville, on the left.

    Problem is, Republicans (and Democrats) want it both ways. ”The president [Bush] is indicating that he will not either enforce part or the entirety of congressional bills," said ABA president Michael S. Greco, a Massachusetts attorney. "We will be close to a constitutional crisis if this issue, the president's use of signing statements, is left unchecked." (Washington Post, 2006)

    Or how about Edwin Meese, Attorney General for President Reagan: “Constitutional interpretation is not the business of the Court only, but also properly the business of all branches of government.”

    These kinds of issues and arguments have been going on since George Washington. To pretend that one side is worse than the other is simply putting on blinders. And Dan is simply handing out the blinders to anyone on his side who is willing to put them on.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    July 5, 2014 12:39 p.m.

    "During his administration, Barack Hussein OBama has aggressively and unabashedly taken possession of legislative powers by refusing to enforce laws he disagrees with..."

    That, Mr. Obama, is in direct violation of the US Constitution which says 'he (the President) shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed. Why is this guy not impeached already? The answer is fairly plain... his Democrat friends in the Senate don't care a whit about the US Constitution either.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    July 5, 2014 7:48 a.m.

    I find it amazing how many people seem to be willing to allow Obama to be a king. This hyperpartisonship is very interesting. Because Obama is their guy, he's allowed to behave as king and not a president. He's allowed to break the law and the constitution.

  • Light and Liberty St. George/Washington, UT
    July 5, 2014 6:50 a.m.

    Worst. President. Ever! The greatest president of the past 100 years was Ronald Reagan. He actually said he believed and loved America, something our current president obviously has stated otherwise. His disdain for our founding fathers, the Constitution, and even God is readily apparent. When , as Lincoln did, has Obama asked Americans to get on their knees and ask God for forgiveness or help? No, what we see is a reliance on arrogance and pride and bringing a division in America not seen since Lincoln. Great leaders bring citizens together. Obviously, not this one.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    July 5, 2014 5:38 a.m.

    I agree with this.

    If some think that the President has to do something, here is a question. What if the president doesn't do something then should the military decide that they are the ones who have to do something and have a coup? Like they did in a lot of banana republics.

    Congress ceded authority to the president with a lot of laws giving them authority. Something could get done but congressmen would not get into trouble if someone in their districts disagreed.

    About 25 years ago there was a balanced budget debate and congress and the president were both trying to get the other to have the power. Congress didn't want the authority and neither did the president.

    England fought a civil war in the 1600's over whether the King or Parliament had the authority to raise taxes with both wanting the authority. In our case, neither congress or the president wanted the authority because both would take the blame.

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    July 5, 2014 12:42 a.m.

    I think it's unfair and short-sighted to pronounce Barack Obama the worst president since WWII. It's far more correct to designate him as the worst president the country has EVER had, or probably (hopefully) ever will have. He is completely disinterested in the principles that made this country great and have allowed it to survive through the years. His interests are in his personal pleasure and power, and making sure that America doesn't ever become too free or too successful. That's plain to anyone who has the courage and insight to make an objective evaluation based on evidence and facts.

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    July 5, 2014 12:17 a.m.

    "During his administration, President Obama has become a Constitutional squatter, aggressively and unabashedly taking possession of legislative powers by refusing to enforce laws he disagrees with, by legislating through executive fiat and by rewriting laws through agency regulations."

    I can say the same thing about all the Presidents since Lincoln. This is not just an Obama problem, but it seems to be getting worse with each successive President. I do pin a lot of the blame on the legislature though. If you study Ancient Rome, you will quickly realize that the Senate's dysfunction led to the downfall of the Republic and the rise of the Empire. In a divided government such as ours, all branches of government are culpable for the failures of the government and in a democratic Republic, the people are ultimately responsible. The problem in America to day is that politics have taken precedence over policies--from domestic to foreign. The public, at the urgings of quick fame politicians, have been stirred up to play the game of hyper-partisanship and are now reaping what was sown.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 4, 2014 9:56 p.m.

    So, Dan, even though I think you meant to be disrespectful in describing Obama as a "squatter" your analogy may be correct. Just as in an earlier time land squatters were sometimes justified in squatting when the owners were AWOL, so Obama may be considered a squatter because he is taking care of business in the face of an AWOL GOP. Thanks for the analogy!

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    July 4, 2014 9:01 p.m.

    Obama has faced a Republican Party which has claimed to want to do one thing only, and that is to see Obama fail. They have no other goal. Remember Senator DeMint, when asked about his priorities his one and only priority was to make Obama a one term president, and this was in the midst of a economy collapsing (2009). Think of it - the country is in a nose dive and the Republicans can think of only one thing - make Obama fail.

    Obama has had to develop a tough hide to deal with this bunch. Given the unwillingness of Republicans to compromise on anything Obama has decided to do some things on his own, and I don't blame him.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    July 4, 2014 2:51 p.m.

    To all Obama supporters: As has been pointed out, "getting things done" doesn't mean getting the right things done. Often, its better to do nothing than what Obama has done (and yes, the Dems led by Reid have blocked the GOP's better ideas). Don't whine about Obama's good intentions. Results count, not intentions. How's Obamacare working out for you? How about that promised transparency? And that integrity? (Let's see, Fast & Furious, IRS including the "lost" emails and Lerner taking the 5th, Benghazi and the "video", Solyndra, shovel ready jobs, billion dollar "stimulus packages," that did not stimulate, it is now A-OK to kill eagles as long as you do it by windmill, campaign promise in 2007 to clean up the VA but suddenly Obama has just barely learned about the situation from the newspapers...)
    When I was little, I wondered how someone like Hitler could convince everyone to give him power. Those today who want a more and more powerful government help me to better understand that. They remind me of the "king-men" in the Book of Mormon. Now I know why the story of the king-men was included in that book.

  • dobberdobber Ivins, UT
    July 4, 2014 2:21 p.m.


    I think both parties have had their share of so called broken laws. It is all how we perceive the action. The Republicans try to force their ideology on everyone and the Democrats do the same. The reality is that that the ideology of the majority of Americans is somewhere in between the two. In the past compromise was common place, now it is off the table. We seem to only hear the extremes on both sides and most of the posts prove that. Liberals listen to liberal commentators and conservatives listen to conservatives. If they do listen to opposition it is only to find someway to twist their words. The Democrats and Repulicans ( our ruling class )are just like the Pharisees and Sadducees in the time of Christ, they bicker and fight for their own agenda and the people suffer by stifling the very changes that we the American people need. A happy Independence Day to all,and God bless America.

    Sorry I had a link to Pres Bush's 750 broken laws but in wouldn't post with it.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    July 4, 2014 12:04 a.m.

    "...yet ACA was passed by Congress and vetted by the Supreme Court."

    It was passed by the House and Senate, both controlled by Democrats... and without one Republican vote. And not one amendment proffered by the Republicans was accepted by the Democrats and put into the law.

    And Roberts of the Supreme Court wrote law, which is a no-no and unconstitutional, by changing 'penalty' to 'tax' for failure to purchase health insurance under Obamacare. There's no mention of 'tax' in the entire bill. In fact, the Democrats intentionally avoided the word in the bill.

    "Actually, this the same Obama who was voted to two consecutive terms as President of the United States by popular vote . . . and who could still beat Mitt Romney if the election were held again today."

    Not according to the latest poles which says Romney would win, hands down.

    @Howard Beal:
    "I didn't see any declaration of war to get us in Iraq..."

    Declarations of war can come in many forms such as: 'Authorization to use Military Force in Iraq' voted for by Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Joe Biden.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    July 3, 2014 7:58 p.m.

    SCFan: You say the House is closest to the people, yet in the most recent election, more votes were cast for Democratic candidates than for Republican candidates. By empirical evidence, what you say is simply no longer true.

    Mike Richards states that Obama tells us we must buy health insurance - and gets the most "likes" for this fabrication - yet ACA was passed by Congress and vetted by the Supreme Court.

    Both are compelling examples of the need for greater investment in education.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 3, 2014 7:25 p.m.

    Gee Mike -- your 7:23 a.m. comment got 21 likes and GOLD star.
    A New Personal Record for you, congratulations.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    If the President were a Republican and he did what Obama does, would you complain? Would you call on him to stop the nonsense? Would you remind him of his duties as written in the Constitution? If not, why not? If so, why are you not calling on Obama to stop his nonsense?
    4:59 p.m. July 3, 2014

    [I did, and you and your buddies called me all sorts of things --
    un-patriotic America, a Traitor, a Devil Worshipper, for it for 8 years.

    BTW -- just to be quite clear --
    I have refuted YOUR comments, but I have never once called you any of the names I was called.]

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 3, 2014 4:59 p.m.

    Howard Beal,

    If the President were a Republican and he did what Obama does, would you complain? Would you call on him to stop the nonsense? Would you remind him of his duties as written in the Constitution? If not, why not? If so, why are you not calling on Obama to stop his nonsense?

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    July 3, 2014 4:38 p.m.

    Effective Congress's have parleyed with the opposition. The Republican House and the filibuster obsessed Republican obstructionist Senate insults President Obama and then complains that he won't work with them. They are accustomed to dealing with their no-questions asked followers, but they need negotiating skills with those whom they disagree. Polls show that Americans don't want or trust the direction the Republican House and filibuster obsessed Republican obstructionist Senate is headed. Americans know the Republican controlled House and the filibuster obsessed Republican obstructionist Senate are failing. Simply because low-information Republicans voted for them doesn't mean we are lemmings who want to follow them over the cliff.

  • Alfred Phoenix, AZ
    July 3, 2014 4:19 p.m.

    @Irony Guy:
    "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."

    There are no polygamists in Utah. The man is married to only one woman but perhaps cohabitates with several at the same time. A license is needed to marry. And only one license is issued per couple: one man and one woman.

    "If president obama is actually (and not rhetorically) overstepping, hold him accountable."

    Good idea. Have him impeached... something like Nixon was.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    July 3, 2014 4:00 p.m.

    @Bob K:
    "However the basic tone is 'How dare he try to accomplish for America what he thinks is right, when Congress shirks its duty?'"

    Don't get too excited. His goal: turn America into a socialist country. And he's almost there.

    "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."

    Can't imagine why the DN allowed your derisive comment.

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

    Most are now admitting they should-a voted for Romney.

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

    I wonder that too. He doesn't seem to have any.

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

    We need Jesus now more than ever... Remember, he drove some corrupt people out of the temple with a whip.

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

    The Congress (House) is trying its hardest to preserve our US Constitution intact.

  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    July 3, 2014 3:43 p.m.

    Effective presidents have parleyed with the opposition, Eisenhower, LBJ, Reagan and JFK. Mr. Obama insults the opposition and then complains that they won't work with him. He is accustomed to dealing with his no-questions asked followers, but he needs negotiating skills with those who disagree. Polls show that Americans don't want or trust the direction he is headed. Simply because we (I) voted for him doesn't mean we are lemmings who want to follow him over the cliff.

  • AZKID Mapleton, UT
    July 3, 2014 2:01 p.m.

    In reference to my earlier proposals on term limits, etc., I would also add that the new method for electing Congress should specifically provide for a recall by some kind of super majority. That way we could effectively fire any truly bad actors in Congress. It risks adding a bit more politics back into it, but we need some kind of safety valve.

    But a contrary point might be that by drastically increasing the size of Congress, any single bad apple would not be as serious a matter, so we might just be OK without the recall provision. Then there would be no risk of politicking.

  • AZKID Mapleton, UT
    July 3, 2014 1:57 p.m.


    Thanks for the support. I totally agree with your idea for a 6-year term for president.

    You are correct that Congress will never amend the constitution to limit its own power. That's why we would need to use the second method of amending the constitution that the founders wisely gave us.

    Article V of the Constitution says that a convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution may be called by two thirds of the state legislatures. Then those same amendments would have to be later ratified by three fourths of the state legislatures. Clearly, this is the only way to make it happen. An uphill battle, to be sure, but doable.

    Various states over the years have called for a convention--specifically to draft a balanced budget amendment. It is possible that the needed two thirds requirement was actually met earlier this year; however, some question exists as to whether the threshold has actually been reached (with some resolutions being decades old, and others being possibly rescinded), and whether or not other amendments, such as the ones I propose, could be included without a new set of state-by-state resolutions.

  • Vir_Bonus United States, UT
    July 3, 2014 1:46 p.m.

    Happily, I believe we are beginning to find common ground in our collective distaste for a POTUS that lies with impunity. Willfully blind if you do not see it.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    July 3, 2014 1:34 p.m.


    I like your 3 points, especially term limits. I would add that the President serve one 6 year term and no re-election. Then the problem of Presidents spending their time fund raising and running for re-election would be negated, just like with the Congress. He or she could actually sit down at the Oval Office desk and do the work of Chief Executive, Commander in Chief, and President rather than worrying about the next election. Too much time wasted in that stuff.

    Unfortunatly two problems with good ideas like yours. One, the very people who have to vote themselves out of a job are the one that would be needed to pass it. And two, we did enact term limits in Congress back in the 1990s. The Supreme Court overturned it. So, I don't think term limits will be possible.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    July 3, 2014 1:19 p.m.

    There's a difference between seizing power from Congress and having Congress abdicate it.

    The Constitution says only Congress has power to "declare war." When was the last time Congress actually did that? They have let both Republican and Democratic Presidents free reign. We are seeing much the same thing in other areas. What has Congress done on immigration reform. Nothing. The same is true of any number of issues.

    Nature abhors a vacuum. If you want to stop Presidents from seizing power, try exercising a little of it yourself.

  • AZKID Mapleton, UT
    July 3, 2014 12:53 p.m.

    I won't debate on whether or not the executive branch is over-reaching and which party did it. To one degree or or another, both parties have done it. The real problem is in fact congress. We need an immediate constitutional convention to restructure congress and how we elect it. Here is my 3-point proposal.

    1) Enact a strict limit of one term for all congressmen and senators. We elect them once, they do the people's business for one term, and then they come home. No politics once they are elected. The power of lobbyists would be drastically cut.

    2) Increase the length of the single terms to eight years for senators and four years for congressmen. This increase would give them enough time to actually accomplish something, but not long enough to get entrenched in the power trip.

    3) Drastically increase the size of the House of Representatives by about 10 to 20 times and moderately increase the size of the Senate by two to three times--thus changing the representation ratio. This accomplishes two things: First, they would need smaller staffs and fewer regulatory bureaucrats--our elected representatives would do the actual work. Second, less power concentrated with any one individual.

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    July 3, 2014 12:43 p.m.

    Question for Mike Richards: so has any Republican, to be fair, gone against the Constitution? I didn't see any declaration of war to get us in Iraq or Afghanistan? I need some consistency from you!

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    July 3, 2014 12:39 p.m.


    Welcome to the losing battle. Unfortunatly for Obama and your side, recent polls show that Romney would have been preferred by the American people. Guess you didn't get the memo. And if you really believe that Obama could win now, after 6 years of mediocrity as President, then the delusions are on you. Better get up to speed with the truth going on out there, or we conservatives who read your posts here may never be able to post here again. We'll all be laughing too hard.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    July 3, 2014 12:21 p.m.

    Hey SCfantasy -

    "And were the election held today, it would be a landslide. For Romney."

    I can understand why "Conservatives" avoid reality like the plague and immerse themselves in such pleasant (for them) delusions.

    Reality and the truth never support their prejudices.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    July 3, 2014 12:14 p.m.

    Bob K
    49.9% to 48.6% or 56,350,000 vs 54,870,000 hardly consititutes a "landslide" for Obama. And were the election held today, it would be a landslide. For Romney.

    As Indiana Jones said to Marion Ravenwood, "It's not the years, it's the mileage". In the case of Obama, it's not the amount of EOs it's the type. The Supreme Court has handed down several wrist slaps to him already on that subject. 9 to nothing I might add. Take note, and remember, it will not always be a liberal Democrat in the White House. The power Obama is using now could come back to bite the liberals and Democrats hard if employed by a conservative Republican President.

    And finally all. The House, which is the peoples house, and closest to the collective will of all the people, has passed immigration legislation and other legislation. You want to know why nothing is getting done in Congress? Two words. harry reid. (he doesn't deserve caps)

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    July 3, 2014 12:13 p.m.

    Listen to several democrats here openly calling for a king--to "get things done." Well, no question about it--dictators and kings certainly get things done, without a pesky legislature. I note none of the progressives here have addressed the question of when does King Barack give back this power that he is "borrowing." Or is the plan to never give it back?

    Instead, they whine that Barack's not issued as many executive orders. As if that matters. All it takes is one: "I hereby suspend the Constitution of the United States and assume full control. Any who oppose me or this order shall be summarily executed." The democrats here would say that if President Hillary, say, issued that executive order that she would be the least dictatorial president ever, since she only issued one order.

    I would imagine that if Obama issued such an order, the leftists here would cheer him on immensely. They certainly show no signs of liking the Constitution.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    July 3, 2014 12:11 p.m.

    By the way, Executive Orders are appropriate, legitimate and based on law passed by Congress. This was never an issue until the right wing decided to relentlessly attack Obama.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    July 3, 2014 12:09 p.m.

    @ Richie, the "president that's a puppet for Valerie Jarret"? Wow, that's pretty funny. Reid's a "wimp" but he blocks House action? Sounds like a tough guy to me. You like House action, but hate Boehner? Goodness, you are confused.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    July 3, 2014 11:59 a.m.

    Hey Hahahaha -

    "Is this the same obama that was just voted worst president since WWII?"

    Actually, this the same Obama who was voted to two consecutive terms as President of the United States by popular vote . . . and who could still beat Mitt Romney if the election were held again today.

    But 33 percent of Americans (aka sore losers) think Obama is the worst President since 1945.

  • andyjaggy American Fork, UT
    July 3, 2014 11:35 a.m.

    Last I checked both Bush and Reagan both had more executive orders at this point in their presidencies than Obama has. I don't like it either but if you are going to whine about it, at least be consistent.

  • riverofsun St.George, Utah
    July 3, 2014 11:27 a.m.

    If a Republican were doing what President Obama is doing to accomplish those issues the voters put him into office for, Conservative Right Wing constituents would call their Republican leader "Brilliant and inventive".

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    July 3, 2014 11:18 a.m.

    "...Bush went to congress and got approval for everything he did...".

    The truth is...

    Not one of the 161 executive orders effecting over 1,100 provisions of law signed by President Bush were ever approved by the Congress.

    161 executive orders circumventing Congress.

  • Shimlau SAINT GEORGE, UT
    July 3, 2014 10:55 a.m.

    If memory serves me correctly, it happens that the Senate (controlled by the Democrats) has shot down every thing that the House (controlled by the republicans) has tried to do. to me it looks like the Dems are the ones that are causing the obstruction. Obama said after he was elected that if the repubs wanted to come along, they would have to ride in the back. He obviously didn't want to compromise and with control of both houses of congress, he didn't have to. Look what that got us.

  • PP Eagle Mountain, UT
    July 3, 2014 10:43 a.m.

    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?

  • Richie Saint George, UT
    July 3, 2014 10:27 a.m.

    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.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    July 3, 2014 10:14 a.m.

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

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    July 3, 2014 9:54 a.m.

    @ 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?

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    July 3, 2014 9:23 a.m.

    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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 3, 2014 9:12 a.m.

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

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    July 3, 2014 9:11 a.m.

    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.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    July 3, 2014 9:06 a.m.

    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.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    July 3, 2014 8:56 a.m.


    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.

  • kiddsport Fairview, UT
    July 3, 2014 8:45 a.m.

    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.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    July 3, 2014 8:39 a.m.

    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.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    July 3, 2014 8:12 a.m.

    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.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    July 3, 2014 8:00 a.m.

    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.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    July 3, 2014 7:38 a.m.

    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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    July 3, 2014 7:28 a.m.

    @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!

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 3, 2014 7:26 a.m.

    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.

  • Joan Watson TWIN FALLS, ID
    July 3, 2014 7:06 a.m.

    Could not agree more.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    July 3, 2014 7:03 a.m.

    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.

  • ordinaryfolks seattle, WA
    July 3, 2014 6:25 a.m.

    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.

  • Bob K Davis, CA
    July 3, 2014 1:57 a.m.

    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?