Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Sorry, but you're wrong.
The Founders wrote a Constitution that set up three coequal but separate branches of government. They envisioned that this three legged stool approach provided a defense against abuses of power by any one branch. As wise men, they knew that each branch would inevitably attempt to encroach on the authority of the others, and thus they provided each branch with ample weapons to defend their turf.
The only thing unusual about this battle between the executive and legislative branches is that the legislative branch is itself divided. The Constitution clearly requires both houses to pass spending bills however, so it cannot be said that the Founders didn't envision this type of deadlock.
What strikes me as undemocratic is Obama granting untold waivers to political allies, yet pretending the law is fully in place. He has shown a troubling tendency to confuse his role with that of a dictator on numerous issues. At some point the only real check on him, the republican House, has to draw the line. Let's hope they don't lose their nerve.
You raised some very good points, in my opinion, with regard to the legitimacy of Obama granting waivers. I'd like to see the Congress challenge this as a united body. Factions have challenged it, but it deserves a bipartisan challenge.
I emphatically don't agree that the founders intended the three branches to be coequal. I have read that many times, but it is wrong. History clearly indicates that the Founders agreed, after much argument and controversy, that the Legislative Branch, and specifically the peoples House, should be vested with the greatest power and authority among the branches.
James Madison wrote in Federalist 51, regarding the ability of each branch to defend itself from actions by the others, that "it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates." And I would add that, among the legislative branch, the greatest power and authority, by far, is given to the House rather than the Senate. Furthermore the the Executive branch was clearly intended to be subservient to the legislative branch, as was the judicial branch.
May I call your attention to Article III of the U.S. Constitution:
The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact,
with the exception, and under such regulation as the Congress shall make."
It is Congress that is empowered by the Constitution to regulate the Court and not vice versa.!!!
This is what historian and politician Newt Gingrich was referring to when during the Presidential debate he said, "or Congress could just ignore the Supreme Court." Naturally this raised eyebrows since so few are aware that the Constitution makes Congress superior to the Court. But Gingrich was right , though his words were inaccurate. He implied that Congress could simply ignore a ruling of the court, which would cause a Constitutional crisis, but what he meant is that Congress could prevent the Court from ruling. And that is correct!
Of course, over time, the original intentions of the Founders have been corrupted, and may not even be recognizable in our modern government, where the Executive branch has usurped much of the power the Founders intended for Congress.
If you are truly interested in this topic, then I can recommend highly Gore Vidal's Little Book "Imperial America" as the most readable account of the American Constitution's evolution. It is one of Vidal's best books, and one of his most opinionated, which is an achievement in itself, since he was, in general, among the most opinionated and exasperating persons to ever walk the face of the Earth.
