Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Learn the Constitution

Comments

Return To Article
  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    Aug. 16, 2014 8:30 p.m.

    Brent has written the most correct letter to appear in this paper in a long time. He is absolutey correct in both of his propositions. The general public is woefully uneducated about the Constitution, and the current left-wing administration is woefully disrespectful of it.

    The current left-wing administration ignores the Constitution whenever it feels like it. Indeed, the left will stop at nothing in its quest to turn this Country into just another European-style post-Christian socialist state.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 16, 2014 9:30 p.m.

    "The current presidential administration treats our constitution like yesterday’s newspaper and they abuse it quite frequently."

    Your teacher didn't do a very good job teaching you the Constitution. Either that or he was as far out in right field as you seem to be.

  • E Sam Provo, UT
    Aug. 16, 2014 11:11 p.m.

    The current President does absolutely nothing of the sort. I know, because I have very carefully studied the Constitution. As has this President, a former professor of Constitutional Law.

  • Owen Heber City, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 4:24 a.m.

    I knew and loved John Carlile as a teacher and neighbor. He understood what many today do not, best said by Jefferson and engraved behind his head in his memorial. "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 5:12 a.m.

    JCS,

    Hyperbole is available to all players, so in the spirit of "sauce for the goose" allow me to borrow and tweak your last paragraph and show you what you sound like to most readers:

    "Right-wing administrations ignore the Constitution whenever they feel like it. Indeed, the right will stop at nothing in its quest to turn this Country into just another Third-World-style theocratic dictatorship."

    Get the idea, John?

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 8:35 a.m.

    There was disagreement between the Founding Fathers over what some parts of the Constitution meant and how those things would play out as the country progressed.

    It is not surprising that there are still disagreements about what exactly the Constitution means.

    One thing is for sure though, just because you disagree with something that is being done does not automatically make it unconstitutional.

    If you believe that something unconstitutional is being done, you can petition the courts to address that issue. Interestingly enough, in spite of all the accusations against Obama, no one is pursuing legal action against him. And the one lawsuit that has been threatened is on very sketchy ground, historically and Constitutionally.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 8:56 a.m.

    Nice try Blue, in deflecting the issue by use of ad hominem attacks. However, Obama is the one who has been censured by the courts for violating the Constitution, with the illegal recess appointments being one example.

  • MoNoMo Fair Oaks, CA
    Aug. 17, 2014 9:25 a.m.

    @John Charity Spring,

    Evidently recess appointments were fine with everyone until Obama came to the office. Bush made 46 recess appointments during his time in office.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 17, 2014 9:33 a.m.

    Article 1, Section 1, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

    The President cannot write law. Judges cannot write law. Only Congress can write law. Our "Constitutional expert" President hasn't read Article 1, Section 1.

    The President is required to take this oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

    Is it lack of ability or has the President stomped all over his oath of office?

    Article 2, Section 3: ". . . he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, . . ."

    Picking and choosing laws or parts of laws is not acceptable.

    As John Charity Spring pointed out, Obama has been censured by the courts for his violations of the Constitution.

    Read it and keep reading it until you understand that the People have limited the authority of government and clipped the wings of the President.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 17, 2014 10:15 a.m.

    "Learn the Constitution"

    Perhaps that suggestion should be directed to Barack Hussein Obama. Sure, he went to school to study the Constitution but he musta skipped most of his classes.

    @Maudine:
    "It is not surprising that there are still disagreements about what exactly the Constitution means."

    How could there be any disagreement about Article 2, section 3: ...'take care that the laws are faithfully executed'?

    "One thing is for sure though, just because you disagree with something that is being done does not automatically make it unconstitutional."

    Well, I guess even if the president is required constitutionally to implement Congressional laws, it doesn't automatically mean he can't do something on his own that Congress hasn't passed a law on.

    "Interestingly enough, in spite of all the accusations against Obama, no one is pursuing legal action against him."

    House Speaker Boehner is pursuing...

    "And the one lawsuit that has been threatened is on very sketchy ground, historically and Constitutionally."

    Sketchy ground?? Please elucidate.

    As for impeachment, that would not get past Senate Majority leader Harry Reid.

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 10:20 a.m.

    to MR & JCS

    Would these be the same courts who are in favor of Citizens united and New London not Kelo??

    If so, there is a serious credibility issue... don't you think?

  • The Educator South Jordan , UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 10:34 a.m.

    Brent, let me answer your question with a question:

    When was the last time you sat through a US history class at your local public high school, Wasatch?

    Have you ever seen the lesson plans written by the Government and Citizenship teacher?

    When was the last time you read the state state core on US History and Government and Citizenship? On uen's website they have everything that Utah teachers are supposed to teach in their curriculum.

    If you haven't done all of these, then why are you writing a letter into the dnews asking whether or not the Constitution is being taught in Utah schools? Put forth a little effort and find out!

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 10:47 a.m.

    To all Obama critics: Name a recent president who has faithfully executed the constitution in your view.

  • FreedomFighter41 Provo, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 11:02 a.m.

    Is the Constitution still being taught in Utah schools?

    Yes. It is required curriculum for both US History and Civics.

    Is your own interpretation of the Constitution being taught in Utah schools?

    No.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Aug. 17, 2014 11:15 a.m.

    Mike R. always prefers to be seen as writing from principle rather than partisanship, despite the fact that his comments are normally VERY partisan. Now he's back to attacking Obama based on Constitutional matters. But where was Mike when GWB created more "signing statements" than all other presidents combined? All had the purpose of stating which Acts of Congress (or portions thereof) he would enforce, and which would be ignored, which is also mentioned in his 9:33 post. Constitutional? Unlikely.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 12:28 p.m.

    The Constitution that I learned about in school, and later pledged my life to, is not the Constitution that is being used to demean our President. I could not pledge to support the Constitution as defined by the conservatives.

    Rather than a honorable document intended to inspire and create the greatness of America it is being used to destroy our national government, remove freedom from people and set up petty kingdoms for the local rich-and-powerful.

    In my youth, religious freedom was a freedom available to all. Today religious freedom is being used to enhance the power of organized religion.

  • Owen Heber City, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 1:21 p.m.

    Mr. Richards, comments like "Our 'Constitutional expert' President hasn't read Article 1, Section 1." cause even readers who may respect your commitment to not take you seriously. While they may ignore or end-run the Constitution, every President has read and understood or understands the document at least as well as you. And the conservative Supreme Court disagrees with your narrow interpretations.

    Everyone I know - most of whom, like you, believe the Constitution to be an inspired document - understands the executive branch, has latitude to apply laws with the rulemaking process. And that those rules change from administration to administration. Just because you don't like the way a particular administration administers doesn't make the administering unconstitutional.

    On the other hand, laws with specific language like "thou shalt not sell arms to Contras" or "thou shalt not torture" or "thou shalt not spy on Americans without just cause and a warrant" leave little room for administrative interpretation and application.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Aug. 17, 2014 5:02 p.m.

    So much comes down to "My guy understands and respects the constitution. While your guy does not."

    Every president in my memory was excoriated for not understanding the constitution the way his opponents do.

    The constitution provides its own arbiter of constitutionality. The legislative branch presents, the president approves (or not), and the supreme court reviews. Once all of the constitutional officers have had their say, the issue is done. Settled. Period. Agree, disagree, it is irrelevant.

    There is no "super arbiter". No one that stands apart (in superhuman form) to render divine judgement on an issue. The people can individually have opinions, but the people have a say only via constitutionally recognized officials.

    Every bit as much (if not more) than a statement of principles, the constitution is a process to work out power struggles.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 5:24 p.m.

    @ wrz: Congress gave Boehner permission to sue the President - the lawsuit has not yet been filed, nor is the outcome predetermined.

    The reason the lawsuit is on sketchy ground is because Obama has not refused to implement the law - he has agreed to let agencies involved with implementing the law have a little discretion to work out problems that have been arising around the implementation, very similar to what other Presidents have done with other laws including George W. Bush and Medicare Part D.

    As for "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," the Court has previously previously ruled that it is acceptable for the President to authorize delays in the implementation of laws as long as the delays are reasonable and not based on policy disagreements (see, for example, Heckler v Chaney, 1985). Just to clarify, a delay is not a refusal. (Ha, look at that - disagreement about Article II, Section 3....)

  • the greater truth Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 5:38 p.m.

    @E Sam

    Obama was never a professor of constitutional law,

    he was a guest lecturer at a university.

    And his lectures were about getting around the constitution to implement radical views.

    @FreedomFighter41

    No, the question is is the original intent and actual history being taught, or the modern progressive interpretations and the new false history that commoncore is requiring to pass its tests.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 5:42 p.m.

    The Constitution actually prohibits the President from breaking the laws therein.
    I challenge any of these alleged experts to name one thing the current administration has done counter to the Constitution.
    Also, this document all the right-wingers claim to love is what established the federal government, you know, the President, the house and the courts.
    If it is inspired then accept the government it formed.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Aug. 17, 2014 6:27 p.m.

    Wow. Mr. greater truth was in class when Obama was teaching??

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 17, 2014 6:30 p.m.

    Mark B.,

    If it was unconstitutional for Bush to stomp on the Constitution and if you find fault with him for doing it, why then do you applaud Obama?

    Mr. Kayser,

    The validity of a law is not determined by who obeys that law or the popularity of that law.

    Owen,

    My copy of the Constitution has no exception for Obama. He is not excluded from Article 1, Section 1 that authorizes Congress and only Congress to legislate. There is no footnote that permits Obama or the Courts to legislate. Either you believe that the people have the authority to limit government or you believe that government "owns" the rights and that the people are pawns of government.

    There is no amendment that changed the legislative authority, that removed the President's responsibility to enforce all legislation that became law, or that allowed the President to revoke his oath of office. Obama has no excuse. He claims that he has read the Constitution and that he understands it. His actions show that he has not read it and that he does not believe that the People have authority too limit HIM.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 6:58 p.m.

    Wow, greater truth, how about using some of it?

    As for the question, is the Constitution taught in Utah schools? YES.

    Starting in grade 5 and repeated several times until high school graduation.

    A better question would be, "Do Utah students even try to pay attention when the Constitution is being taught?"

    NO, not usually.

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Aug. 17, 2014 9:43 p.m.

    @ Mike: Please list one law that Obama has made.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 17, 2014 11:22 p.m.

    @Owen:
    On the other hand, laws with specific language like 'thou shalt not sell arms to Contras' or 'thou shalt not torture' or 'thou shalt not spy on Americans without just cause and a warrant' leave little room for administrative interpretation and application."

    None of the issues you cite are found in the Constitution. And all can have a variety of interpretations as to meaning. For example, who are contras and what is torture?

    @Maudine:
    "The reason the lawsuit is on sketchy ground is because Obama has... agreed to let agencies involved with implementing the law have a little discretion..."

    Agency heads rarely if even take it upon themselves to not implement laws or parts of laws. They get their marching orders direct from the pres... perhaps even as a nod of his royal highness's head in a staff meeting.

    "Just to clarify, a delay is not a refusal."

    A delay extended indefinitely is de facto refusal. But, I do understand that lack of sufficient funding could be blamed for implementation delays. Which, of course is a major step in reducing the Constitution to a worthless piece of parchment.

  • wrz Phoenix, AZ
    Aug. 17, 2014 11:45 p.m.

    @Ernest T. Bass:
    "I challenge any of these alleged experts to name one thing the current administration has done counter to the Constitution."

    The current administration didn't do it but the government has created agencies not identified in the Constitution... such as the US Air Force, Departments of Labor, Education, etc. There's a way to fix these types of problems. It called amendments to the Constitution (Article 5).

    "Also, this document all the right-wingers claim to love is what established the federal government, you know, the President, the house and the courts."

    It also limited the responsibilities of the government it created. As spelled out in Article 1 Section 8 and Amendment 10.

    @Mike Richards:
    "My copy of the Constitution has no exception for Obama."

    Barack Hussein Obama knows full well that he will not be forced to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed.' He has the Senate under Harry Reid in hip pocket as well as his attorney General Eric Holder which, according to Holder, is his kind of people.

  • Owen Heber City, UT
    Aug. 18, 2014 12:33 a.m.

    @ Mike - Again, comments such as "... he has not read it..." destroy any credibility you may have. Please leave the repetition of things every American knows to be false to AM radio hosts. If you are so sure the administration has broken the law, or that the President is guilty of ignoring his oath, convince your representatives (who would love nothing more) to bring suit against him. Good luck with that. And please admit there is a difference between rulemaking and legislating.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Aug. 18, 2014 4:58 a.m.

    I'd be curious to know how some of the people who comment here think that a president can support and defend the Constitution and at the same time, actively defend unconstitutional laws.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Aug. 18, 2014 5:43 a.m.

    greater truth - Since you seem to be interested in discerning the truth, it's worth considering what FactCheck had to say about the issue of President Obama being a professor:

    "His formal title was "senior lecturer," but the University of Chicago Law School says he "served as a professor" and was "regarded as" a professor."

    Add to that this additional sentence they provided:

    "Obama was not merely an "instructor" as Phil Singer stated. As a "senior lecturer," Obama was in good company: The six other faculty members with the title include the associate dean of the law school and Judge Richard Posner, who is widely considered to be one of the nation’s top legal theorists."

    The University of Chicago Law School is considered among the best in the country and it's hard to believe that they would let a lightweight serve even as a "lecturer." And by the way, where is your evidence that "his lectures were about getting around the constitution to implement radical views"?

    Truth - that's what it's all about.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 18, 2014 7:30 a.m.

    Maudine,

    You know that Obama has written law and signed that law himself, starting in 2009. His first legislation was executive order No. 13489. He's legislated 186 times, ending with order 13671.

    You may say that other Presidents have also issued executive orders. So what? Does that excuse Obama from obeying the Constitution? He has told us that he will increase his use of executive orders to get around Congress. In other words, if Congress does not legislate the laws that Obama wants, he will issue executive orders in lieu of that legislation.

    And, he has "legislated" by NOT implementing laws passed by Congress.

    That is a clear breach of the separation of power that the Constitution provides.

    Congress reports to the people and to the States, not to the President. He has no authority to demand legislation.

    The Court has no authority to legislate, yet the Court legislates, recently by adding a new tax on the people; a tax not listed in Article 1, Section 8; the largest tax ever levied on the poor in this nation's history - ObamaCare.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Aug. 18, 2014 8:09 a.m.

    Although I completely disagree with Fury's assertion that the Executive Branch of government has the right to determine whether a law is Constitutional or not, I complete agree that Obama has refused to implement the unconstitutional ObamaCare law. His unwillingness to implement that law shows that he knows that it is unconstitutional, just as he refuses to inhibit illegal aliens from entering this country because he asserts that being required to protect our Southern border is unconstitutional.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Aug. 18, 2014 8:14 a.m.

    Mike Richards said, "He has told us that he will increase his use of executive orders to get around Congress. In other words, if Congress does not legislate the laws that Obama wants, he will issue executive orders in lieu of that legislation."

    The president has to govern. The Republican Congress can dilly dally all they want but the president is the CEO of the nation and has to keep things moving. It isn't that "Congress does not legislate the laws that Obama want" it is that Congress doesn't legislate anything. They pass bills that will never pass in a bipartisan legislature and they have no interest in doing anything worthwhile or that might make the country better. They're only interested in making political statements. Without anything to work with, the president is left with the executive order.

    "And, he has "legislated" by NOT implementing laws passed by Congress."

    I'm certain you are talking about not deporting illegals fast enough. The facts are that his slow movement on the deportation of children is, in fact, enforcing the laws passed by the 2008 Congress and signed by President Bush. You're complaining about him enforcing the laws.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 18, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    The President does not "govern". That is not part of his job description which was written by the people. His job is to execute the laws passed by Congress. Reid's failure to allow the Senate to vote on legislation is not the fault of the House. If Congress cannot or will not pass legislation, that is no business of the President. He has no authority to legislate. None. Nada.

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 18, 2014 9:13 a.m.

    What has he legislated?

    The Dream Act? The President can pardon, or commute sentences. He has essentially done so with these young kids coming across with their parents.

    The ACA? Again, the President can issues pardons, or commute sentences. He can "pardon" those employers for the year they did not need to meet the mandate in the law.

    Refusing to defend DOMA? He did not stop the law, Federal agencies did not, and could recognize same sex marriages until it was struck down by the courts. No where in the Constitution does it say he must defend laws, only execute them. Which he did.

    I will fully agree that such a thing should have been done with Congress, but the President has acted fully within the scope of his powers granted by the Constitution.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Aug. 18, 2014 10:09 a.m.

    Our government was set up so that the president and the Congress would "govern together. Tere would be disagreements and fights between the two and within the Congress itself. But the idea of governing is two reach common ground on what is best for the country. In the best sense, at least some people, and perhaps all of us, will be unhappy with any given bill because it gives to much to what we perceive is the other side. But if, in the end, it keeps our country moving forward, guaranteeing Constitutional rights, then we must all live with laws that aren't perfect. And if those imperfections prove to do more harm than good, then Congress can change or do away with them. The Supreme Court is there to ensure that process is legal.

    For Mike to claim that Harry Reid and the Senate is the logjam in this case is laughable. John Boehner refused to allow a straight vote in the House over the debt ceiling when he knew it would pass but it would not be supported by a majority of his party. The shutdown cost us all $26B. That is how the Republicans choose to govern.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Aug. 18, 2014 10:46 a.m.

    The Federal Government does not "govern" the people. Each of us is a citizen of a State. We are "governed" by the Governor of our State. The duties of the Federal Government are to insure that the STATES are protected if any State is attacked by enemies foreign or domestic. Other duties insure that the "big" states do not take advantage of "small" states. In no case have the people given the Federal Government the duty to "govern" them.

    Each person who comments has access to a computer or other electronic device which can be used to display the contents of the Constitution. There is absolutely no reason for any misleading information to be published. Furthermore, each one of us can see for ourselves how many bills Reid has squelched. Any intelligent person can see that HE is the reason that legislation has not been voted on.

    Obama has no authority to govern and no authority to legislate. His duty is to faithfully execute the laws passed by Congress.

    Look it up. It's in YOUR Constitution.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Aug. 18, 2014 11:25 a.m.

    Mike Richard -- you should know (but perhaps choose to ignore) the FACT that an executive order is NOT a LAW.

    It is an order that directs how functions of the administrative branch will be implemented. That direct how a law will be enforced by the administration.

    You need to spend some time studying basic high school civics.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Aug. 18, 2014 11:39 a.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    J Thompson
    SPRINGVILLE, UT

    =======

    You buddy George W. Bush delared "War",
    something HE could not do,
    and something only Congress could do, and never did.

    $14 Trillion,
    6,000 dead
    75,000 wounded

    yet,
    neither one of you have EVER once made one peep of outrage over that.

    Hypocritical, perhaps?

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    Aug. 18, 2014 12:07 p.m.

    @Mike Richards

    "His first legislation was executive order No. 13489.

    You do know, don't you, that President G.W. Bush issued an executive order restricting public access to Presidential records and that Obama's EO 13489 reversed that order bringing the White House more in compliance with the Presidential records act? Before I made the suggestion that each of his EO is legislating, I'd find out what they are first so I don't look too silly.

    "You may say that other Presidents have also issued executive orders. So what?"

    Of over 15,000 executive orders issued by every sitting president beginning with the eight Washington issued ONLY TWO have been ruled as exceeding the executive's authority by the courts. Less than 1/100 of a percentage point. One thing is certain, however: the party that is not sitting in the White House hates 'em and wants to be rid of them but once they get back in the White House "no problem."

    "yet the Court legislates, recently by adding a new tax on the people--ObamaCare"

    Wait-a-minute! Levying taxes is an enumerated duty of the congress and the congress approved ACA. You can't have it both ways.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Aug. 18, 2014 12:12 p.m.

    The President in office is Obama. Those lost in a time warp might think otherwise. Some claim that because someone else broke the law that their favorite President can break it too. Some even blame posters for the lawlessness of Obama. It's time that they get a grip. Obama is the President. He claims to be a Constitutional expert; therefore he has no excuse for abusing the Constitution and for ignoring his duty to execute the duties of his office. He would know that the penalty for doing what he is doing is impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate. His only hope is that the House will impeach him while the Senate has enough Democrats to ignore the law and let him off - just like they ignored the law and failed to convict Clinton, who clearly lied under oath.

    After the next election, all bets are off.

    Either we are a nation that respects law or we are not. Allowing lawlessness because a President is popular is unconscionable. God told us that He is no respecter of persons, but Democrats seem to waive the law to protect Obama.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Aug. 18, 2014 2:03 p.m.

    " The current presidential administration treats our constitution like yesterday’s newspaper and they abuse it quite frequently. Take a close look: Do your kids know the constitution?"

    WRONG. It is the self-described "Patriots" among America's Right Wing who treat the Constitution like garbage while having convinced themselves that they are its adherents.

    The two "patriots" and Cliven Bundy supporters who murdered those two police officers in Las Vegas considered themselves Constitutionalists and Patriots too.
    I don't think they are, and neither is most of the Tea Party.

    Most of these people are undereducated and naive, and they let the likes of Rush Limbaugh do their thinking for them.

    If you're going to learn the Constitution, then learn the Constitution . . . And NOT Right-Wing distortions of what the Constitution.

    Face it. Most self-described "Constitutionalists" only THINK they know the Constitution.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Aug. 18, 2014 2:05 p.m.

    " The current presidential administration treats our constitution like yesterday’s newspaper and they abuse it quite frequently. Take a close look: Do your kids know the constitution?"

    WRONG. It is the self-described "Patriots" among America's Right Wing who treat the Constitution like garbage while having convinced themselves that they are its adherents.

    The two "patriots" and Cliven Bundy supporters who murdered those two police officers in Las Vegas considered themselves Constitutionalists and Patriots too.
    I don't think they are, and neither is most of the Tea Party.

    Most of these people are undereducated and naive, and they let the likes of Rush Limbaugh do their thinking for them.

    If you're going to learn the Constitution, then learn the Constitution . . . And NOT Right-Wing distortions of what the Constitution says.

    Face it. Most self-described "Constitutionalists" only THINK they know the Constitution.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Aug. 18, 2014 3:29 p.m.

    Mike Richards -

    "The President does not "govern". That is not part of his job description which was written by the people??!"

    Say What?!

    You must have missed that day in 7th grade civics class, where your teacher talked about the three branches of government.

    Our President is the Chief Executive and the Head of the EXECUTIVE Branch of government.

    And yes Mike, the government does in fact govern, and President Obama, as our Chief Executive, most definitely governs.

    It's his job.

    I find it remarkable that so many self-described patriots and constitutionalists seem to know so little about how this nation's government actually works.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Aug. 18, 2014 3:56 p.m.

    @MR -
    "The President does not "govern".

    =======

    gov·ern verb \ˈgə-vərn\ : to officially control and lead (a group of people) : to make decisions about laws, taxes, social programs, etc., for (a country, state, etc.)

    : to control the way that (something) is done

    : to control or guide the actions of (someone or something)

    =======

    Some can not read and understand the Constitution,
    because they simply can not read in the first place...

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Aug. 18, 2014 4:26 p.m.

    As usual, certain posters ridicule others by selecting a definition that agrees with their position. Anyone who has any desire to find the CORRECT answer doesn't stop when they find their preferred definition, but they continue until they understand the subject.

    To govern: "a: to exercise continuous sovereign authority over; especially : to control and direct the making and administration of policy in

    b: to rule without sovereign power and usually without having the authority to determine basic policy"

    Those two definitions show that Obama's authority to govern is self-assigned. He has no sovereign authority over us. He does not control us (except in a world where we lay down and let him control our lives.

    The second definition describes what is happening in the Oval Office. Obama is using our ignorance of the Constitution to impose his personal will on America. He has no "sovereign power" to control us. He has no authority to order citizens to do anything.

    Read the Constitution.

    The Constitution prohibits him from "GOVERNING" the people of the United States. Citizens of States owe absolutely no allegiance to a "President" who demands their allegiance.

  • Sorry Charlie! SLC, UT
    Aug. 18, 2014 4:28 p.m.

    @ J Thompson: "Allowing lawlessness because a President is popular is unconscionable." And pretending something is unconstitutional because you don't like the guy doing it is silly.

  • Unreconstructed Reb Chantilly, VA
    Aug. 18, 2014 4:43 p.m.

    I doubt that those who disparage executive orders have bothered to read many, if any, of them. If they did, they would recognize that they generally cite as their authority a law duly enacted by the legislative branch. In fact, much legislation passed by Congress includes explicitly authorizes executive orders for implementation.

    I doubt that those who disparage executive orders have ever counted the sum total of executive orders that have been signed, beginning with George Washington. And I doubt that these skeptics know exactly how many executive orders have ever been deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

    Before getting on one's high horse about the constitutionality of executive orders, it behooves one to understand the legal basis for them, their frequency, and the legitimacy bestowed on them by the highest court in the land.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    Aug. 18, 2014 7:03 p.m.

    Per the constitution:

    "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

    From Merriam Webster:

    "1
    a : of or relating to the execution of the laws and the conduct of public and national affairs
    b : belonging to the branch of government that is charged with such powers as diplomatic representation, superintendence of the execution of the laws, and appointment of officials and that usually has some power over legislation (as through veto) — compare judicial, legislative
    2
    a : designed for or relating to execution or carrying into effect
    b : having administrative or managerial responsibility"

    Seems clear enough to me.

  • TheProudDuck Newport Beach, CA
    Aug. 19, 2014 3:48 p.m.

    Has there ever been a President who has been on the receiving end of so many unanimous Supreme Court decisions?

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 20, 2014 7:50 a.m.

    Mike Richards, it seems that when your political party is in power it's do as I say not as I do. Our judicial branch is charged with upholding the Constitution and so far weather you like it or not they have done exactly that with regards to all citizens of this country, including all races and all genders. I guess they may go against your "moral" views but as citizens everyone is afforded constitutional protections.

  • 65TossPowerTrap Salmon, ID
    Aug. 20, 2014 8:46 a.m.

    More right-wing blather. Where were these guys when Bush was telling lies and sending soldiers to die in Iraq? Where were these guys when Bush was pushing the Patriot Act down our throats? Spare me your hypocrisy.