"When President George W. Bush was in office, Democrats criticized his
go-it-alone approach"Congress is full of hypocrites. Is that
any surprise? Is it something new?All presidents act unilaterally
at times. It is nothing new, and Obama is no different from his
predecessors.We typically don't think of ourselves as
hypocrites. We can always manage to find a reason why what our guy did was
justified and totally different from their guy who did the exact same thing.
Perfect example - Obama is a foreign born citizen who is does not
meet the requirements for Office of President, while Ted Cruz is completely
Might as well disband congress! Obama has taken over as dictator.
Oh pleeeeez!Such a myopic, single view, politically biased, article ---
Why does the DN continually print these one-sided lobby pieces? from: Forbes magazine 1/28/2013 [a right-wing magazine, I might add]"When It Comes To Abuse Of Presidential Power, Obama Is A Mere
Piker"Republicans and conservatives have complained loudly that
President Obama has been resorting to non-democratic and unconstitutional
governance; imperiously ignoring the so-called “will of the people”
by issuing a cascade of new executive orders. According to Senator
Rand Paul (R-KY), Mr. Obama is acting “like a king”... Conservative author and radio talk show host Mark Levin contends that
Obama’s executive orders are “un-American” and even
“fascistic.”If so, then certain Republican presidents
– including Dwight Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan – must
be classified as even more monarchical, un-American and “fascistic”
than Barack Obama."
Power corrupts, Absolute Power corrupst absolutely!
Re: "Oh pleeeeez! Such a myopic, single view, politically biased, article
---"Way to be open-minded!And, BTW, calling Forbes a
"right-wing magazine" is akin to calling New Republic a mouthpiece for
the GOP -- at least since Steve Forbes' abrupt about face, and its
acquisition of True/Slant and its founder, Lewis Dvorkin. Since then, the
formerly credible magazine has developed a decided list to port. Today, it is
characterized by the propagandizing of admitted liberals, the likes of Steve
Zwick and Len Burman.While it's true that "all presidents
act unilaterally, at times," the breathtaking frequency and scope of
Obama's unilateral executive acts are truly unprecedented, even taking into
account the actions of his purported presidential muse, FDR.Mocking
Americans alarmed by accurate comparisons between Obama and other
freedom-destroying autocrats is either cynically disingenuous or remarkably
The legislative branch has been selling their power for years to the executive
branch so they can get reelected. People must wake up and become the check on
congress and the senate otherwise each president will become more and more like
a King. Look at the progression from Clinton to Bush to Obama. Each one has
welcomed more power under them and none of them have relenquished the power of
A very reasoned and well thought out article. And absolutely true.
This article makes some good suggestions such as:"The federal
government should run on last year’s budget if Congress can’t agree
on a new one."" eliminate the redundant debt-ceiling
vote,""bring transparency to lobbying and campaign
donations, and pursue efforts to reduce candidates’ reliance on big donors
and powerful lobbyists."Democrats would favor these measures.
The Republicans have opposed efforts to increase transparency in our political
process and they opposed allowing last years budget to continue when they
attached the " defund Obamacare" poison pill.
My preference is that Congress and the President work together and do what the
Founding Fathers demonstrated is essential for this democratic republic to
function: Compromise.But when the opposition party's primary
priority is to make sure the President is not re-elected, they fail at that goal
but keep sabotaging every effort to move things forward, we end up in a
dysfunctional situation, revealed as being even more dysfunctional by these
ridiculous government shutdowns and abuse of the filibuster rules in the Senate
by the GOP.Again, it would be preferable to have the people in
Washington work together and compromise. When that doesn't happen, the
nation needs to continue to operate, and like a 2-year throwing a tantrum on a
busy city sidewalk, we need to just move around it.
"the breathtaking frequency and scope of Obama's unilateral executive
acts are truly unprecedented"No they are not. Not even close.
How many signing statements did Bush sign?How are those
I wish President Obama would simply declare America a democracy and do away with
the notion of separate state governments and their federal representatives. I
wish that he would dissolve Congress and rewrite the Bill of Rights for people
and not for states and businesses. In today’s world, the only
attribute that we have that means anything is being an American. Being a
Utahan, Californian, Kansan, Virginian means nothing beyond the residency of
business control over their people. I also wish I had a Chocolate
Donut tree, a stream of hot coffee, slightly sweetened right nest to he peanut
butter sandwich bush, in my own backyard
I agree. The President should not be bypassing the checks and balances
intentionally placed there by our founding fathers.The founding
fathers were very concerned about government being controled by one-man, or even
one-party. They put special countermeasures in our Constitution to INSURE that
our country could never be controlled by one-man, or one-party. They wanted to
require that there be a plurality of ideas presented (not just one) and require
wide-spread/bi-partisan support before things pass... and the partisan things
with only narrow support to fail.When the President makes decisions
by fiat instead of making his case to the WHOLE Congress and getting BOTH
parties to find something they like in it... it goes against this principle.When the President locks one party out of discussions on his
proposals... it goes AGAINST this principle.The principle is to
force the President (and his party) to have to compromise, and temper their
legislation so there is something beneficial to ALL parties before it will pass.
And if they don't... they can't get their agenda passed.They wanted most things to fail... UNLESS they had wide/bi-partisan support.
"When the President locks one party out of discussions on his proposals...
it goes AGAINST this principle."And when one party is opposed to
any and every measure or presidential nominee proposed, not based on substance,
but based purely on partisan politics, it also goes AGAINST this principle.Yes, it is a two way street.
"...The filibuster is not part of our nation’s constitutional design.
To the contrary, the framers rejected supermajority requirements except in
limited circumstances, such as impeaching the president and ratifying treaties.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 22 that if “a pertinacious
minority can control the opinion of a majority,” there would be
“tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible
compromises of the public good.” As a result, the government would often
be “kept in a state of inaction.” Sound familiar?...".A very reasoned and well thought out paragraph of the piece... And absolutely
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UTI agree. The President should not be
bypassing the checks and balances intentionally placed there by our founding
fathers.The founding fathers were very concerned about government
being controled by one-man, or even one-party. They put special countermeasures
in our Constitution to INSURE that our country could never be controlled by
one-man, or one-party. ========== Your comment does not
pass the smell test.1. I don't remember you writing comments
about GW Bush's even longer list of Executive Orders.2. The
Constitution never mentions once political parties, or how many there should or
should not be.3. If you were truely afraid, worried, and concerned about
the tyranny of One-Party rule, then your head should be exploding over the
tyranical One-Party rule right here in your own back yard! [Washington is MUCH
more balanced than Utah is].
What system of checks and balances? That has been completely forgotten by the
GOP in their pitiful efforts to destroy Obama.
Re: "When President George W. Bush was in office, Democrats criticized his
go-it-alone approach"...But there are two different problems.Bush's "go it alone" approach" was acting unilaterally
in foreign affairs. (Hint... that's the Executive branch's job). He
wasn't LEGISLATING (hint... that's Congress job). Obama is making
Congress irrelevant. Bush was making the UN irrelevant.---Bush did not LEGISLATE on his own (Presidents should NOT legislate)...
he just Defended America without requiring other countries to hold our hand and
go along with us (as commander in chief).Name some legislation Bush
made law without consulting Congress first...He consulted Congress
and got majority support before starting military action in Afghanistan. Same
in Iraq. I think Bush got Congress to approve everything he did.
Obama just changes the law... and THEN asks Congress to bless what he did.---When Presidents start legislating (passing/changing laws)
without a vote in Congress first... it's NOT the way legislation is
supposed to be done, and Congress becomes irrelevant.Presidents are
NOT super-legislators. Presidents just have failsafe power to veto bad
legislation (which only stops something passed by Congress)... but he has ZERO
right to legislate.
A pattern has been established over the past 5+ years with Barack Hussin Obama
which is to ignore congress on nearly everything and attempt to act in a
historically lawless manner to ram through his agenda. You can't find one
president in the past 50 years that has acted so consistently in such a lawless
manner - ignoring the constitution and historical established rules. Yes every
president from time to time has attempted to side step congress but it is the
exception for these presidents. With Obama it is the RULE. The man simply does
not understand his role in the three branches of government nor does he respect
the need to work with congress. Barack will NOT work with congressional leaders
but instead jumps out on the campaign trail and speaks to his hand picked
audiences covered by his hand picked media to attempt to do an end run around
congressional checks and balances. The left always tries to suggest that every
president has done this which is completely FALSE. No president has acted with
such a lawless disregard for the constitution and the framework of our republic.
Baracks poll numbers are now at a historical low - 36%.
Truth is, a President will take as much power as he can. That is part of the
job. Congress is there to stop a President from becoming a dictator. That and
elections. That is why Executive Orders last only as long as the Presidents
term. Also recess appointments last until the next convening of Congress.
Anyway, yes Obama is taking as much power he can. It is Congress, namely the
Senate that has given him so much more power with taking away the fillabuster.
THAT is the threat to too much power in the hands of one man. Reid and most
(not all) Democrats are happy to have a dictator as long as he is dictating the
way they want. Sad to think that so many elected officials are willing to use
ends justify the means to get their way. Even when it belies the spirit of the
We have three branches of government that DO NOT overlap. Congress is the only
branch of government that has been assigned the authority to legislate. The
Executive branch is the only branch of government that has been the authority to
execute the laws passed by Congress. The Court is the only branch of government
that has been given the task to verify that each law passed by Congress is legal
when measured against the duties and authority of the Federal Government.All three branches have failed miserably. All three branches need to be
cleaned out. Every person on the Court (which has divided itself by party), in
the Executive Office (which is legislating) and in Congress (which pushes
through legislation without allowing Congress to read it) needs to be removed
from office. Not one of them can say that he/she has done ONLY what the
Constitution allows.Every citizen who applauds this lawlessness has
no respect for our Constitution nor for the reasons that we have checks and
balances in Government. It doesn't matter whether YOUR guy is in power.
Anyone who abuses his office on any level of government has abused us all.
Re: "How many signing statements did Bush sign?"157. Not
1,100.James Monroe was the first to use one, and, they're still
being used -- Obama has signed 18, after making a firm campaign promise [merely
one of a myriad that have not been kept] not to sign any.Sorry, but
suggesting that a few signing statements are somehow the moral equivalent of
cynically and for political advantage picking and choosing which laws to
enforce; not defending our borders; abandoning our military, our diplomats, and
allies; using EPA, IRS, FWS, ACOE, BATFE, NSA, and DOJ bureaucrats as a club to
terrorize and bloody opponents; packing the executive bureaucracy and the courts
with loyal and radical cronies; and enacting literally reams of executive
legislation, is simply disingenuous.
Mike Richards,You are right. There's SUPPOSED to be one branch that
legislates (the legislative branch). Another branch that executes those laws
(the executive branch), and another independent branch that determines if any
law is unconstitutional (the judicial branch).The problem today
is... All 3 branches are trying to legislate. Judges try to create
new laws the never existed (but they think SHOULD exist) by creatively
interpreting existing laws. The Executive branch thinks they can
create/change/delay a law any time they want (without even consulting the actual
Legislative branch). IMO this is because Congress can't DO
anything (partially due to political infighting, and also because they just
don't know how to get anything done). So that branch of government is
quickly become completely irrelevant. Congress has lost all their power.
They are just a debate club now. They talk and talk but don't really do
IMO Executive Orders should be reserved for "Emergencies" when
there's not time to convene Congress. Not as and end-around to avoid the
inconvenience of needing to debate and vote on it in Congress.There
are emergencies. 9/11 for instance, natural disasters, economic crisis, etc.
But you don't resort to an Executive Order just because you don't want
to be bothered with Congress or any opposition to your orders.Executive orders should be very rare. I know they are not today (regardless
of party or person in the Presidency). But it's not the way it was
intended to be.Congress represents the States and the People. They
should get a vote.
I see nothing here that are more egregious than some of the acts of the last
president from Illinois.
re:Unreconstructed RebBarack is in a league of his own. No other
past presidents come close to the outright disregard for the law that this man
has. I suspect this all comes from Barack's favorite book - Rules For
Re: "I see nothing here that [is] more egregious than some of the acts of
the last president from Illinois."No doubt.That
doesn't mean there's nothing to see.Liberals are so
willfully and blissfully blind!
I wish we actually had the socialist president the red faced screamers claim we
do. We could have proper health care by now, and maybe some sort of gun control.
Cheney used more unilateral power than Obama .