Quote:November 22, 2010
The Rise of Unchecked Presidential Power
By Robert Eugene Simmons Jr.

In order to achieve a dictatorship in a country, you have to go one of two ways. Either you have to foment a violent revolution, using the power of the military to seize the government, or you have to be voted into the position and seize the power slowly. In the USA, it is all but impossible to achieve the takeover via violent overthrow, and the separation of powers makes it difficult to take over via slow seizure of power. However, the plans of the progressives have been working steadily since the Woodrow Wilson administration, and the task is almost complete.

The legislative branch, for example, has ceded vast parts of its authority voluntarily. According the to the Constitution, only the legislature can make laws. Although not the first example of such an agency, the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 is a good example. The EPA was founded by an act of the legislature and charged to protect the environment. Since then, the EPA has been writing "regulations" which are, in fact, laws. You can be prosecuted and deprived of freedom or assets for disobeying the regulations of the EPA. Instead of going through all the trouble itself, Congress has delegated the passing of environmental laws to an agency not beholden to the will of the voting public. There are dozens of other agencies so empowered to regulate everything from food and medicine (FDA) to airplane travel (NTSB and FHA) -- all making laws without even a tacit nod to the citizens.

In fact, there are, according to a recent article in the Washington Post, 1.43 million civilians working for the federal government in various bureaucracies, and if state and local governments are taken into account, the number spikes to near 21 million by some estimates. Contrast this with the mere 535 elected members of the federal legislature. Many of these agencies require Senate approval for the presidential appointee to lead them. However, others require no such Senate approval, and presidents often get around the approval process via "recess appointments" such as the one used by Obama in 2010 to install a new chief of Medicare.


---MORE---

I cannot take the author seriously if they don't point out Dubya was just as terrible in this area.

TR was a self-labeled progressive. And he was the one who started on the road of increasing executive powers, and setting up a variety of "agencies" to do the executive's bidding.

Wilson was bad, but it didn't start w/ him.

It's funny that Republicans only hate big government when they don't control it.
All hail "King Obama".
:uberbow:

I thought the exact same thing. Where were these type of articles a couple of years back?

(11-23-2010 08:56 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I cannot take the author seriously if they don't point out Dubya was just as terrible in this area.

I can take half the content seriously but you're right... Bush wa just as bad.

But don't ignore the fact that we have unelected folks making laws (unconstitutional)

Its also hard to ignore the fact that 1/16 citizens works for a government (fed/state/local) and 53 Million (1/6) Americans are living on Social Security alone. Thats 11/48 (just shy of a quarter) Americans being supported, in whole, by the rest.

The author left out NCLB, The Patriot Act, and More medicare spending as Bush's contributions to this trend.

This is to say nothing of the Iraq War which was waged on an 'authorization of force' decree than a deceleration of war which should embarass both Bush and the Congress that let it happen.

(11-23-2010 11:34 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I thought the exact same thing. Where were these type of articles a couple of years back?

http://economistsview.typepad.com/econom...e_con.html

http://conservativesam.blogspot.com/2006...-bush.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4292.html

...

Make no mistake, rank and file republicans may have given bush a pass but many true conservatives did not..

The Question you might want to ask yourself is this...

If *shudder* President Palin restricts freedoms would you be ok with a leftie griping about here even though they gave Obama a pass? Listeing to Stephanie Miller today it was amusing to hear her pin, rightfully, the backscatter orgins to Bush. She really des not think they are all that bad..

What I really wanted to know is would she feel the same way if it was president McCain in charge of the TSA now or would it be jokes about sexually repressed republicans who hate your freedom.

(11-23-2010 11:34 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I thought the exact same thing. Where were these type of articles a couple of years back?

That's about as disingenuous as you can get.

(11-23-2010 11:34 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I thought the exact same thing. Where were these type of articles a couple of years back?

Let's see how you feel when all these powers Dumbo is creating for himself are passed on to a Republican president in 2012.

(11-23-2010 11:34 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I thought the exact same thing. Where were these type of articles a couple of years back?

The same place your criticism for foreign policy and endless war has gone now that Obama is in office?

Whichever party the next president should be apart of needs to be the minority in congress. Whenever a president has no opposition in the houses, he knows he can do whatever he wants. I'm a firm believer that the more legislation gets locked up between congress and the president, the less mess citizens get.

Checks and balances are their for a reason. It doesn't work if everyone in congress follows the president like he is the leader of their party.

(11-23-2010 08:56 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I cannot take the author seriously if they don't point out Dubya was just as terrible in this area.

+1

Balance of power dictates that the congress and judicial branch prevent the executive branch from overstepping it's bounds.

(11-23-2010 03:57 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(11-23-2010 08:56 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I cannot take the author seriously if they don't point out Dubya was just as terrible in this area.

+1

One of my big problems with Shrub was that his excesses paved the way for Obama's excesses. Those of you who were listening heard me then.