Quote:This is what's wrong with you. You fail the realize when Congress deliberately grinds to a halt, it's all of our problem. Not just the guy you don't like.

What makes you think I like Congress?

 

My whole underlying point is this: Congress and the President not getting along does not give the President the right to abuse an administrative procedure in a manner that potentially has Constitutional ramifications. I don't care if Congress packs up and goes home rather than hear any more proposals from the Obama Administration. The executive order was allowed (not Constitutionally granted) so that the President could do simple, dumb things like grant a $500k budget increase to the GAO for a pet project, and to ensure that we could immediately respond to an attack on US soil by granting the President the ability to order us into battle for up to 72 hours while Congress convenes and formally declares war. That "power" was not accepted so that a President who isn't getting his way could pull an end-around on Capitol Hill and force a controversial, possibly rights-stripping policy into effect until the Supreme Court overturns it three years later.

 

I don't mind in the least what the provisions of the order are. I don't agree with all of them, but I think that on the whole, it's a necessary step. What I object to is the idea that a President can abuse an executive order to force the outcome he desires without Congressional approval, which the Constitution dictates is necessary. The idea that people are defending Obama's tyranny (and yeah, this is about as close to tyranny as I've ever seen from a President) is a little bit terrifying to me. You're allowing one man elected by delegates--not 565 people elected by you--to shove a policy that might violate the Constitution down your throat with no oversight, no opposition and no democratic process. Are you really ok with that?

---