Excellent points.If Americans cared as much for freedom as they care
for cell-phones, they wouldn't allow the President to do what he is doing.
They would use those cell-phone and talk to each other about his abuse of power.
They would actually read what the Consitution says about the limits placed on
each branch of government. They would rein in their Congress and they would
require that Congress use its power of impeachment to rein in the President, not
as a threat, but as a solumn duty.This nation cannot continue to
exist when it ignores the foundation document that is the supreme law of the
land. The checks and balances built into that Supreme Law keeps everything in
balance and it severely limits the authority of the Federal Government to
perform only those few duties that are truly beyond the scope and power of the
States.Ignorance of the Constitution and deriliction of duty, as
citizens, upon whose shoulders the responsibility of government actually rests,
has fathered this crisis. It will only be solved when citizens insist that the
law be followed.
The difference between Pres. Obama's executive actions and those of other
recent presidents is that his employed the following:1) Enacted
provisions of laws that Congress refused to pass, such as the Dream Act, gay
marriage, and increasing the minimum wage.2) Eliminated provisions of laws
that Congress recently passed, such as the ACA.I can think of
nothing that a recent president has done that matches this direct combat with
official Congressional decisions.
According to the piece, federal spending right now is 21% of GDP. Under Reagan
it averaged 22%. Did this paper express outrage back then? The
article accuses the president of failure to enforce certain laws. Reagan and
subsequent Republican presidents all refused to enforce the Sherman Anti-trust
act, leading to the destruction of local businesses across this country. I still
don't remember any outrage about that. Business has been
routinely ignoring labor law without facing any consequences for at least three
decades now, but there is no lamenting of that fact by this paper.We're all guilty of criticizing the other guy and giving our own guy a
pass. But when the editorial section of a newspaper does it routinely, you lose
It's not the number of executive orders, it's the nature of them.
When the President swears into office to uphold the Constitution and then
ignores laws passed, that in and of itself should be grounds for action from the
other two co-equal branches of government. The Supreme Court seems to be unable
to do anything unless a case with standing is brought before it. The Congress
would need to bring that case, but many in Congress are remiss to do anything
because they are putting their guy ahead of principle. When Nixon was in
trouble, it was Republican Senators who whet to the White House and told him
that he should resign. However, I'll bet there is not one Democrat that
would have the character to defend the Constitution first before the party. And
it is pretty shortsighted for them to allow this, as it will set the precedent
for a future Republican President to do the same. Very shortsighted.
Obama has made congress irrelevant. Same thing happened in Nazi Germany while
the people applauded!
"I can think of nothing that a recent Congress has done that matches this
direct combat with the president."We should all be beating up on
the President AND the congress. We sent them there to act in good faith to do
what is best for the country.Obamas willingness to bypass congress
to further his wishes is just as egregious as congress obstructing everything
and everything for purely partisan reasons.
This is nothing but partisan talk. A longer term, more objective view would be
more useful. Having been involved first hand in this issue, the Republican
establishment believes in a stronger executive. This, for them, is a
philosophical stance that transcends party politics. There are lots of reasons
for this. It's not a knock on the GOP, just stateming the lay of the land.
The only reason that Republicans, like the author of this piece, are
complaining is because it is President Obama (who has not issued executive
orders at a level on par with other presidents - it's substantially less.
I would expect better scholarship from Harvard). The other thing to note is
that Executive Orders are not only normal, they are necessary for the executive
branch to carry out the will of the legislative branch as represented by passed
and signed legislation. They are all based on established law and instructions
from Congress. If you don't think so, birng a lawsuit and let the courts
adjudicate the matter. But complaining partisans haven't done that because
they know they are wrong. This piece is really nothing more, to quote Sarah
Palin, "lipstick on a pig."
No one stands above the law, not even the president. Congress has a couple of
ways to check his power: control of the purse-strings, and impeachment. They
should actively de-fund unlawful elements at the IRS, the EPA, the DoJ, HHS, and
wherever else the administration steps out of bounds; and they should prepare
the ground for impeachment, in case it becomes necessary. It is the
president's constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully
executed. If he refuses to follow the law, it is the duty of Congress to remove
him from office.
Perhaps if congress was not the least affective congress "EVER" than
they wouldn't be necessary.When the other side announces it's
intention to make him a one term president (they failed there too)it sets
the stage for childish behavior from that party for Obama's entire
presidency as they try and thwart his ability to govern and the
country's ability to function.The
Republican/Conservative/Teaparty Party has painted it's way into it's
They might as well back into the corners. They weren't doing anything else,
BO's actions have been very typical to the Presidents that have come before
him. And, contrary to what some other posters have stated here, nothing that he
has done comes close to "impeachable actions". Conservatives biggest
complaints are that it's him doing it and not a Republican. Currently, the
Republican party is broken. They can't find common ground within thier own
party on a lot of the challenges of our day. BO is an activist President so
he's adopted the strategy to push the envelope and do what he can to keep
things moving. History is going to be very favorable of BO because much of what
he's done saved our country and the world from economic collapse.
Its always better to do nothing than to always do the wrong things, like
Matthew, you must be a Republican. I would have liked to seen what this article
would have said in 2007. It is far part the time that we stop being Republican
vs Democrat; it is far past the time that we stop being conservative vs liberal;
it is far past the time that we hate a President for being black, yet he was
elected twice. We need to come together as a nation. We need to take care of
our nation before trying to buy friends with billions of dollars of foreign aid.
We need to stop the massive amount of money that is flowing to the wealthy and
out of our economy from tax breaks and corporate subsidies. The only reason
Social Security is a drain on this country is that government borrowed from it
so heavily that it now has to pay its bill.
"Its always better to do nothing than to always do the wrong things, like
Obamacare!"Ok, I can agree that Obamacare stinks. But, ANY
reasonable look at the deficit going forward has to understand that Medicare and
Medicaid are the really killers.So, that leaves us 4 choices. Do
Nothing is not a viable optionCut benefitsIncrease taxesCut costsI cannot see another option. Anyone have something else
to throw in the mix?Considering that the costs have been rising at
such a fast rate, it seems obvious that that is the first place to look.So, to date, I have seen one GOP proposal (other than to kill
Obamacare)And the proposal would never pass the GOP controlled
house.Dont you think that the country would be much more open to
killing Obamacare if there was a better proposal out there?I do not
understand why conservatives are not LIVID with their party for not coming up
with a better solution. One that is written as proposed legislation.Mtnman. What do you propose?
As I read the comments from the more left leaning folks here, what I see are 2
arguments.Argument 1: Your guys did it, so our guy can do it too. Argument 2: Its the republicans fault that Obama has to ignore the
Constitution. If they would just do what he wants them to he wouldn't have
to take matters into his own hands.Pretty weak arguments for the
disintegration of separation of powers.
Congress is not the "scapegoat" for inaction, it's the source of
inaction. The President is acting entirely within the law. He was elected by the
people of the USA to promote a certain agenda, and he is doing what he can to
make that agenda happen. If Congress wishes to, it can advance its own agenda.
But it obviously does not wish to.
Obama is nothing more then a weak socialist puppet who spends most of his time
playing golf and ignoring the Constitution. He is assisted by an inept Congress
and Courts. We the people let it happen so ultimately its our fault.
"It's not the number of executive orders, it's the nature of
them."If Obama's executive order count far exceeded past
GOP presidents, it would certainly be about the number of executive orders.So predictable.
Actually, it's the propensity of Congress to sit on its collective hands
and do nothing (there's ALWAYS an election coming up) that has rendered
Mr. Sanders talks eloquently of his experiences working with Macedonia, trying
to recover from Yugoslavian socialism. I quite agree that the communist
experiment failed. But what does seem to work is the combination state, half
market economies and half socialism. Works just fine; see Europe, all of.
This is a well-written and reasoned article. I didn't detect partisanship
in the article. It appears to be quite factual - evening acknowledging that the
number of executive orders is comparable to other sitting presidents. The
system is no longer functioning as intended. Power is becoming more
centralized. The press - whose freedom is insisted upon - no longer is
objective in its reporting but has policies and objectives to pursue. The
educational system looks the other way - worried more about the emotional
"well being" of the student than teaching the lessons of civics,
geography, history, language and mathematics. Where to start to make the change
to these troubles? Let's try it at home...
As I recall, this isn't the only warning of this happening. A few years
back, during another President's term, this was brought up. It seems that
our Congress has a history of sitting back and allowing the President to do what
they should be doing, and by lack of action, allowing that President more and
more power. It's time for Congress to rein in the Executive and start
behaving like the separation of powers actually means something.
The blame is squarely on the shoulders of the Congress themselves. Founders
never, in their wildest dreams, believed that a group of men and women could be
so corrupt, inept and so willing to work against the interests of the country in
a quest for personal gain. Congress has plenty of power but almost no will or
ability to wield it for the good of the people.
The tea party cornered themselves with help of Senator Lee.
The oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the US that the president
swears to does not mean circumventing the elected congress. He is taking a page
from Vladimir Putin and the late Hugo Chavez' play book.
Congress should move slowly and carefully, as it always has. It is
the people that have changed, after becoming accustomed to instant
gratification, first through the sexual revolution, and later through high speed
technology. Debate and consideration of all the consequences of any
government action is needed. When you hurry and pass something without even
knowing what is in it, let alone considering all the long term effects, the
program is apt to cause much harm. Consider bloodletting; doing
nothing is often better than doing the wrong thing.
At the risk of pointing out what the "other guys" did, it must be much
easier than I thought to forget terms like "signing statement", the
constitutionality of which has never been established, or "unitary
executive, which is GOP for "our guy can do anything he wants when he says
it's connected to national security". In fact, it should be Dick
Cheney's picture accompanying the article, not Obama, who tried in vain to
get a half ounce of cooperation from the other side and still gets daily
accusations for his trouble.
4601Salt Lake City, UTThe oath to uphold and defend the Constitution
of the US that the president swears to does not mean circumventing the elected
congress. He is taking a page from Vladimir Putin and the late Hugo Chavez'
play book.10:22 p.m. Feb. 21, 2014======== I'm a Veteran.I sworn to defend the U.S. Constitution.That's what makes me a Liberal.Vladimir Putin and the late
Hugo Chavez -- sheez...pathetic.