President Obama says that he does not need the Congress to make law...

Our government was designed to have three co-equal parts; the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judiciary. The idea of checks and balances was preeminent in the minds of those who constructed our government. No one branch could override the will of the people and it was the responsibility of each branch to represent that will even if that meant opposing another branch.

Having disposed of one tyrannical government, some lawmakers demanded assurances that it would never happen again. To this end the Constitution was written. It is NOT a document that gives rights. It is a document that enumerates rights that come from nature (or God if you prefer). The government cannot give what it does not own. This was to be a guide for good governance. It clearly draws a line that is not to be crossed by one branch or another and gives the other two branches the power, and the responsibility, to correct the errant branch.

The Constitution is a protection for the citizens of this country. It is a limitation on the very government that is required to honor it. So what happens when one branch decides that it does not require another branch to conduct business? What would be the response if the judiciary made it known that it would run the affairs of government from the bench? What if the Congress (both houses) ignored the input and opinion of the executive branch and carried out the law themselves? It would be a direct violation of our Constitution and would require action by the other branches whether they desire to do so or not.

President Obama has said that he no longer requires Congress to make law, carry it out, or to negate the law. A prominent democrat once said that executive orders were an (illegal) end run around Congress. That democrat was Barack Obama in May of 2008. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsRfrcit05M

When one man behaves as the sole law maker and enforcer he becomes a tyrant and being a tyrant requires that the citizenry resist. If our elected representatives of either party do not move to limit this president then we have an obligation and right to demand their removal from office. This is actually a bi-partisan issue as many democrats have gone on record as opposing the abuse of executive orders. Some will try to excuse Obama by saying that Bush wrote more but they miss the point entirely. Not all executive orders are equal and excusing one person by blaming another for worse is poor leadership.

Note: Not all executive orders are the same. George W. Bush wrote 291 executive orders in eight years. They covered some very mundane subject matters; adjusting the pay rates of government employees, restricting trade to North Korea, or creating various advisory panels. What they did not do was change laws written by Congress or create a massive bureaucracy to enforce laws.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...ers/wbush.html

If you want to argue numbers then Obama is on track (before 2014) to write MORE executive orders than George W. Bush. 291 to 296. 2014 has changed that though. 20 executive orders written so far this year. That would average Obama at about 350 executive orders by the time he leaves office. What kind of orders has he written (remember Obama did not have to deal with the tragedy of 9/11 and the urgency of the situation like George W. Bush): Obama has inserted himself into private companies by presidential demands that they increase production, he has created bureaucracy to enforce new codes established by previous executive orders, and he has altered laws passed by Congress (laws that are constitutionally mandated to be the responsiblity of Congress).
http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...ers/obama.html

So it comes down to this, are you in favor of this kind of fundemental change of how the country has operated for over 200 years?

People have lost sight of the fact that our Constitution was created to limit the powers of government over the people and not to provide the government with power over the people.

Our government was designed to have three co-equal parts; the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judiciary. The idea of checks and balances was preeminent in the minds of those who constructed our government. No one branch could override the will of the people and it was the responsibility of each branch to represent that will even if that meant opposing another branch.

Having disposed of one tyrannical government, some lawmakers demanded assurances that it would never happen again. To this end the Constitution was written. It is NOT a document that gives rights. It is a document that enumerates rights that come from nature (or God if you prefer). The government cannot give what it does not own. This was to be a guide for good governance. It clearly draws a line that is not to be crossed by one branch or another and gives the other two branches the power, and the responsibility, to correct the errant branch.

The Constitution is a protection for the citizens of this country. It is a limitation on the very government that is required to honor it. So what happens when one branch decides that it does not require another branch to conduct business? What would be the response if the judiciary made it known that it would run the affairs of government from the bench? What if the Congress (both houses) ignored the input and opinion of the executive branch and carried out the law themselves? It would be a direct violation of our Constitution and would require action by the other branches whether they desire to do so or not.

President Obama has said that he no longer requires Congress to make law, carry it out, or to negate the law. A prominent democrat once said that executive orders were an (illegal) end run around Congress. That democrat was Barack Obama in May of 2008. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsRfrcit05M

When one man behaves as the sole law maker and enforcer he becomes a tyrant and being a tyrant requires that the citizenry resist. If our elected representatives of either party do not move to limit this president then we have an obligation and right to demand their removal from office. This is actually a bi-partisan issue as many democrats have gone on record as opposing the abuse of executive orders. Some will try to excuse Obama by saying that Bush wrote more but they miss the point entirely. Not all executive orders are equal and excusing one person by blaming another for worse is poor leadership.

Note: Not all executive orders are the same. George W. Bush wrote 291 executive orders in eight years. They covered some very mundane subject matters; adjusting the pay rates of government employees, restricting trade to North Korea, or creating various advisory panels. What they did not do was change laws written by Congress or create a massive bureaucracy to enforce laws.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...ers/wbush.html

If you want to argue numbers then Obama is on track (before 2014) to write MORE executive orders than George W. Bush. 291 to 296. 2014 has changed that though. 20 executive orders written so far this year. That would average Obama at about 350 executive orders by the time he leaves office. What kind of orders has he written (remember Obama did not have to deal with the tragedy of 9/11 and the urgency of the situation like George W. Bush): Obama has inserted himself into private companies by presidential demands that they increase production, he has created bureaucracy to enforce new codes established by previous executive orders, and he has altered laws passed by Congress (laws that are constitutionally mandated to be the responsiblity of Congress).
http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...ers/obama.html

So it comes down to this, are you in favor of this kind of fundemental change of how the country has operated for over 200 years? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

The Constitution has a built in remedy for those situations where either the Executive Branch or The Judicial Branch oversteps it's bounds. It is called impeachment.

The flaw in he system is the Founders did not envision an America where polititians put Party first, and the principles of the Country second.

They also did not envision a Republic where The Demagogue could so easily sway the masses.

As long as The Senate is down on their knees sucking The President's dick with a one finger reach around, he is pretty much invulnerable.

It is not Democrat or Republican thing, both major parties play the same game.

In the old Soviet Union, it was understood that you put Party first, and everything else fell behind that. Our Constitutional Republic was never suppose to morph into this, but the simple fact is, it has.

One of the Fouding Fathers, Franklin, I think,said, as he emerged from the Constitutional Convention, (paraphrase), "we have given them a Republic, let's hope they can keep it".

We can see the fruition of his concerns.

They also imagined that an free, oppositional press would help keep things in check but the progressives saw this coming a century ago.

The press used to believe in comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable. Now they get jobs with the comfortable afflicters.