From Clinton to Bush, over the past few years the power invested in the executive branch has grown exponentially. In more recent years with president Obama we have seen the rampant use of executive orders which undermine democracy and freedom as a whole.
George Mason University law professor and author Frank Buckley discusses the consequences of increased executive power. Frank explains that the framers would have never guessed that the role of modern media in politics would lead to such a bloated use of power. He classifies Obama as an elective monarch, which is worse than a regular monarch. He is a king whose privileges extend way beyond the privileges of any king, because he has the electoral backing of the nation through their votes.
“We have evolved into a new kind of constitution- and it is a constitution that resembles that of George the 3rd of England before the revolution. […] We have evolved towards a regime in which power is increasingly held by one person; the president.”
As Obama tramples all over the constitution and all it stands for, it is clear what we need to do. It is time for his impeachment. While some say this is outrageous, he’s given us plenty of reasons for this dramatic action. His dozens of constitutional violations are more than enough to rightfully remove him from his throne.
“… over the past few years the power invested in the executive branch has grown exponentially.”
Invest: to furnish with power, authority, rank, etc.
exponentially:Definition: describes a rate of increase that is extremely quick, appearing to grow by mathematical exponents
I find it hard to believe that lawyers would make a statement like that and use the word ‘exponentailly’ so loosely. I think that the powers invested in the President are fix and well delineated in the Constitution, if any thing there is some overreach by the Executor. The document has not changed since it was written with regard to this.
As for “rampant use of executive orders” a comparison of this President to his predecessors indicate he use it sparingly. And most used it judiciously, as he.
The polls taken in the Dowey v Truman indicated a Dowey win but we know the truth. The same result for the recent contest, they mostly predicted a Romney win, again wrong. What went wrong in the polling. I would hazard to guess their method of polling. What confidence can be put in any poll that is bias? This I think is not intentional but bias none the less.