Letters: A presidential power play?
Re “The president’s power grab,” Opinion, March 9
President Obama’s allies in Congress applauded his promise to legislate from the Oval Office because they share his ideology and consider their own relevance a fair price to pay for advancing it. Their disdain for process comes naturally in a system built to discourage concentrated power; in their view, concentrated power is exactly what society needs.
Acquiescing to Obama’s impromptu lawmaking, like invoking the “nuclear option” to deprive Senate Republicans of the filibuster for most confirmations, makes tactical sense today but raises obvious questions for tomorrow. Do Democrats expect never to see another Republican president or Senate? Will they cry foul when their tactics are turned against them?
The current assault on separation of powers has a desperate, last-gasp feel to it — odd for a party that boasts of riding an irresistible demographic wave.
Michael Smith
Cynthiana, Ky.
The executive overreach that Jonathan Turley laments is a symptom of a larger problem: extreme political polarization.
Throughout Obama’s presidency, Republicans have plotted and pursued a strategy of automatic opposition as a way to revive their party. This deliberate strategy to deny Obama any substantial victories deprives the public of effective governance.
What’s next? Will Democrats respond in kind if our next president is a Republican?
The Republican Party’s cynical tactics and the response of Obama and the Democrats worsen the polarization that is creating political dysfunction. If we the people don’t put a stop to this, we’ll pay an enormous price.
To paraphrase an old saying, it’s time to wake up and smell the coffin.
Jon Thingvold
Murrieta
How benevolent of Turley, after going through his laundry list of executive power decisions by President Obama, to state, “To be clear, President Obama is not a dictator.” He also says he agrees with many of the president’s policies.
Congress can re-legislate an issue, and the courts can throw them out. Criticisms of presidents as dictators are always overblown. The other branches of government serve as checks on presidential power, and those checks extend to executive orders.
Obama has used his executive powers to issue orders less frequently than any other modern president. So far, the president has issued fewer than 180 executive orders. By contrast, George W. Bush issued 291, Clinton 364 and Reagan 381.
This is a do-nothing Congress; last year, it passed fewer than 60 laws, the least productive year in history. Its agenda seems to be whining about the president, presenting half-truths to the public and campaigning for the next election.
Diane Welch
Cypress
There are two simple answers to the excess of executive power.
Impeachment is available. That it does not happen tells us there is not a consensus about the degree of abuse of power.
Also, Congress can undo executive orders legislatively. Again, without an effective majority, this will not happen.
The real worry is not the actions of the executive but the pathology of the lopsided Congress that does not accurately represent voters. When one party gets most of the votes in an election and does not end up in power, there is something wrong, and that is why the president is acting unilaterally.
If Congress had a real constituency it could act to undo those actions, or cooperate. That is the real problem, not the executive.
Thomas Wright
Temecula
ALSO:
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
