Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Public Records | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

No checks, no balances?

February 18, 2013

There was one very telling passage in President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address last Tuesday....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Feb-18-13 10:53 AM

“Imperial Presidency” depends on which side of the aisle you are standing. When the minority party stops all action in congress, then the President has to act. As stated by the New Ulm Journal editor the current Republican Party is controlled by Mr. Norquist, and no longer stand for true “historical” Republican Party. Example the 85 true Republicans in the House stood up and votes to pass af bipartisan tax bill. Mr. Norquist informed them they would no longer get any of his money. It’s up to the true Republicans’ to stand up to Mr. Norquist, and take back our party. This can be done if true Republicans attends every county party caucuses and vote Mr. Norquist’s party chairman out. If Mr. Norquist and his money will not listen to us. The true Republicans, then true Republican has no chose by to vote for the Democrats.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-18-13 12:07 PM

Nusenior- I just hope your Democratic president takes the executive privlidge of balancing the budget. I don't see how spending more is going to balance the budget, raising taxes high enough to balance the budget will destroy the economy. What we have is a government out of control,needs everything at all costs , we are passing all this debt -that we accumulated - onto our children and grandchildren , the Republicans may be in the minority , but if they don't stand up for what they believe in and at least slow down the spending in Washington, you may be looking at a totally different country in the future then what you see now.Don't think we are too great or large to fail , I am sure the Romans thought the same thing. We need fiscal responsibility , if people keep depending on the government for their needs , we are surely doomed. Remember the government only gets its money by taking from others.

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-18-13 1:19 PM

Oh my, the Democratic president did what all presidents do in the SOTU address and explained his priorities and agenda for his second term - and it's not a right wing Republican agenda! It's like he thinks he's "The Decider"!

Republicans demand he lead- but that word, like compromise, has a new definition. Bipartisanship is the last thing Republicans want. As soon as Obama moves in their direction they oppose their own ideas. They built the imperial, socialist, Marxist, Muslim, foreign, America-hating president myth, and now oppose and obstruct is all they can do. How do you work with the person you rally your party to not just disagree with, but hate and fear?

Every president has issued executive orders, but this “imperial president” must have outdone all the others… 144 in one term – wow! Another 147 and he’ll match Bush. Another 236 and he matches Reagan. Checks & balances still exist, and certainly Congress would have and will take action if a president ov

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-18-13 1:21 PM

(continued) Checks & balances still exist, and certainly Congress would have and will take action if a president over steps his authority.

5 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-18-13 2:12 PM

AuntyDem,maybe you should just make him king ,apparently you feel he is all knowing and can do know wrong. But remember anytime something gets too extreme one way there is a correction, if you are dependent on the government in any way I would be very concerned. He has pushed up the national debt 6 trillion dollars, you can blame who ever you want for the debt ,but we are running yearly budgets over a trillion dollars a year , that is unsustainable,it will eventually correct itself as evrything does. If you expect the government to take care of you -good luck. I was raised that if you want something you go out and work hard and you will get it. That does not mean working 40 Hours a week will guarentee you a nice home and early retirement. You may find out your emperor isn't wearing any clothes , good talk doesn't out do hard work. Great leaders bring people together in a time of crisis, I haven't seen that happen. There have been great leaders both Dem and Rep.

4 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-18-13 2:16 PM

"apparently you feel he is all knowing and can do know (no) wrong"

That's some really creative reading comprehension....

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-18-13 2:33 PM

If I am wrong about this president , life goes on , but if I am right we are looking at a second deppression coming , I am prepared for it.It will be those that depend on the government that end up getting hurt the worst, ironic. As far as my typing , I'll let you worry about that.

3 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-18-13 4:39 PM

Still amazes me how little research the Journal does for its editorials. As one commented, Obama's total of executive orders during his first term numbered 144. That's the fewest in modern history by a US President. GW Bush/Cheney issued 290 over two terms; Clinton hit 363 (two terms); Bush I signed 165 (one term); Sir Ronald Reagan 380 (two terms); etc. While the US Constitution is somewhat vague about the use of presidential executive orders, it has been a standard practice used by this nation's top executive. Is it the fact that Obama suggested executive order on climate change, a pet conspiracy claim by the conservative right, that has bothered the Journal editorialist?

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-18-13 8:43 PM

Imperial Presidency? Gosh, that has a familiar ring to it.

Oh, yes, Richard Nixon.

Let's see, was he a Republican?

8 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-19-13 6:55 AM

The number of executive orders are irrevelant, it depends what they are for,could be for something as minor as declaring a special holiday or extreme as appointing persons to a office without conressional approval, it's a slippery slope , careful of what you want to defend , someday it is the other side in power and than you will be complaining.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-19-13 11:16 AM

Excellent point, deerhunt. Let's stay focused on the big stuff.

For example...

"In the name of waging war, Republicans supported massive expansion of government power, instituting new policies ranging from a national banking system and income taxes to conscription and emancipation."*

Oh, and the chief executive almost singlehandedly started a war that killed 700,000 Americans.

Who? The first Imperial President, Abraham Lincoln, Republican.

*Source: "LINCOLN: The Decision for War, The Northern Response to Secession" by Russell McClintock, 2008, The University of North Carolina Press.

Well now, how 'bout them there tax 'n spend liberals?

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-19-13 11:28 AM

Svensota, so you were for the south succeeding from the union so they could keep slavery alive? I do not consider myself a Republican , just a person who is conservative-make the money before you spend it.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-19-13 11:50 AM

Deerhunt: You're confusing one argument and making another.

The point was: The Imperial Presidency is no new thing. It is not an Obama thing. It was not a Nixon thing. It was not a Roosevelt thing. It goes back 150 years.

That is the point. Period.

Now, to your new point:

What Lincoln did had to be done as far as the North was concerned. The South had, and still has, a different point of view. I think slavery is about the worst institution on Earth and there is nothing that can excuse it or condone it.

The argument for or against secession was complex and not at all clear at the time. Jefferson Davis, after being jailed for two years, begged for a trial to argue the right of secession. The Union told him to go home to Biloxi and shut up. They knew the legalities were fragile and at that point, moot.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-20-13 12:29 PM


If you want to read something other than hysterical right-wing blather, try "The Imperial Presidency", by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. He essentially coined the term with his book in 1973.

Schlesinger expresses the same concerns about the presidency running out of control but, of course, he's much more...ahem...fair and balanced because of his infallible liberal background.

Mark Levin?! Cheese and crackers, get the bucket.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-20-13 2:31 PM

Listening to Levin… helps explain the confusing bounces between complete opposites - the hateful words of right wing radio and The Word.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-20-13 6:28 PM

Oh, sure, go ahead and read Thomas Sowell. Why not, the great thinker Sarah Palin endorses him. She was probably deeply moved by Sowell's comparison of President Obama to Adolf Hitler.

Fair and balanced.

My kxmglinkle.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-21-13 8:21 AM

Micheal T - unfortunately we seem to be in the minority in this country, will have too see how things play out in the future with liberals in charge . I may have to kick back and wait for somebody to take care of me intead of working 12 hours a day .

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-21-13 9:26 AM

I agree , they don't offer alternative solutions , instead poke fun of or defame the person.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-21-13 10:42 AM

The number of presidential executive orders is relevant in this discussion because of the original editorial, "No checks, no balances?" If one is debating the constitutional theory of executive orders, the magnitude of the substance of each order is insignificant. A president either has the right or doesn't, according to your consitutional philosophy, or more importantly, US Constitutional policy.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-21-13 12:50 PM

MIT: I know you'd like to make up the rules for everyone else, but it is your recommendation to read Sowell that has no substance.

Do you deny that Thomas Sowell compared President Obama to Adolf Hitler?

Here's the evidence: June 2010 editorial by Sowell in Investors Business Daily titled, "Is U.S. Now on Slippery Slope to Tyranny?"

Do you not think that this just might be something of note for our fellow readers to know about as you promote Sowell's gibberish, unchecked?

Or, do you think we should just accept your recommendations for further reading carte blanche because you are so all-knowing and your recommendations are beyond scrutiny?

I find joy in keeping your claptrap honest, bub.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-21-13 4:52 PM

Thank you for making my point, MIT.

It took you two rambling posts and six paragraphs of back-peddling to respond to my brief opinion, the one that you so arrogantly tried to dismiss as having no substance.

Guess it did, now, didn't it.

And you have just exposed yourself for the right wing dunderhead that you are by buying into Sowell's comparison of Hitler with Obama.

What next, the Beatles being more popular than Jesus?

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-21-13 5:51 PM

If the executive orders signed by Obama in the last 4 years crossed some line no other president's executive orders ever have or violated the constitution why have no charges been brought; the investigative committee headed by Republicans done nothing? Why not compare executive orders right down the line president by president and cite the difference? Because there is none, perhaps?

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-21-13 6:06 PM

Strengthening a political base by building support among people who heretofore had paid little attention to politics, and who were therefore particularly susceptible to rhetoric - is actually a pretty good definition of what Republicans have done with the "grassroots" Tea Party. Not having been involved in politics or a party is how Tea Parties proudly define themselves.

Fox exists to build up the right among the less politically informed of our society - and keep them uninformed.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-21-13 6:16 PM

Auntydem,I actually watch all stations, you have to to get a view from all aspects, even the main media outlets such as CBS and NBC complaign about this president not having the number of press conferences of past presidents where they are able to ask questions. He saves himself for Oprah and Leno where the questions are easier. I prefer to see the press challenge a president and make him explain things more in depth . To bring charges against the president would require the attorney general to do that ,no matter what administration ,highly unlikely.The other option is the House or Senate with enough votes trying to impeach,also highly unlikely. There is some challenge going on in court about recess appointments -not sure what the outcome will be.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-21-13 6:19 PM

Sven - namecalling ????? I think your smarter than that.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 32 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web