The dangers of the imperial presidency
In the early days of our American experiment, there was a debate over what the chief executive should be called: Your Excellency, Your Highness, Caped Crusader…
Many of the Founding Fathers wanted something simple, a departure from the king they risked so much to leave behind. “Mr. President” was settled upon, much to the dismay of John Adams, who pushed for a title with more pomp and circumstance.
But as we have seen, Barack Obama believes that such a title is not worthy of his wisdom and omnipotent throne. He rules with an oblivious sense of arrogance, almost in shock that anyone dares to disagree with him. I know that Mr. Obama is rather new to politics, and it is certainly possible that he has no idea how the American political system is supposed to work, but he continues to alienate voters who once supported him.
The San Diego Union Tribune had this to say in an editorial titled “The President Is Not The King”:
Those who welcome Obama governing by fiat should think about the precedent. How would they feel if on Jan. 20, 2013, President Mitt Romney repealed Democrats’ hard-earned health care reform law – with an executive order? Based on the Obama administration’s conception of executive authority, that would be within his power.