Quote from: My Name Was Taken on November 12, 2014, 08:11:39 PM

Quote from: Spendulus on November 12, 2014, 03:35:44 PM

Quote from: My Name Was Taken on October 31, 2014, 01:58:27 AM

The last 100 years have been a steady progression in the expansion of executive power. In terms of the history of this country, the idea that the president is expected to wield as much power as he does is relatively new. It was never intended to be this way, but as the progression has been gradual, we've been acclimated to it. When things are going wrong, the public wants one person to have the power to 'fix it,' and someone to blame when it's not. Basically, we want to elect our king and expect him not to be corruptible by the power he wields, but when in the history of the world has this ever been the case?

No, we have not been acclimatized to it. No, we don't want one person to fix it. No, we don't want to elect our king.

The ABUSE of executive power by Obama is widely acknowledged and is completely unprecedented.

Except when Bush was treading on the Constitution by doing all the same things Obama has done. Except when Reagan was sending troops into conflict without authorization from Congress. Except when FDR created the New Deal and interfered with the Supreme Court in order to implement it. Except when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Except when Jackson enacted martial law or openly defied the Supreme Court.

Yeah, please tell me again how Obama's power grabs are "completely unprecedented." Roll Eyes

In case you were not aware of it, cases of national necessity and wartime conditions are the very point of options such as executive orders.

That is not what we are discussing. A valid use of executive power would be to suspend civil rights and institute martial law say for example in the case of a severe ebola outbreak.

An abuse of executive power would be to usurp actions and power given constitutionally to Congress, or to sign a blatantly unconstitutional executive order.