What I do know, however, is that procedures exist to curtail any President who oversteps his Constitutional boundaries. Congress has options to pursue. So, too, does the Judicial branch.
With the incredible level of partisan animosity so prevalent in our country right now, I really can't imagine those procedures not being pursued if there's even a chance in Hell of damaging the current administration.
I knew there was something I forgot to add to my last post. Thanks for saying it more clearly than I could Ron.
How many knew that President Lincoln effectively declared war and called for 75,000 troops three months before Congress could convene? Did anyone know that Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and had thousand of Northern political opponents arrested? Including dozens of newspaper editors and publishers? When the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court officially declared Lincoln's suspension unconstitutional, Lincoln and the military ignored Chief Justice Taney. There was even rumors of arresting the Chief Justice? Lincoln went on to extend the scope of the habeas suspensions and continued them for another two years, ending the illegal maneuver only when Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Act of 1863. Lincoln's real coup de grace to our Constitution was his arrest of the Maryland Legislature to prevent them from voting for secession.
West Virginia (Union) was carved out of Virginia (Confederate). One of the most outspoken members of the Democratic Party opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, was arrested, tried, convicted, and eventually deported (to Tennessee?). The mayor of Baltimore and Congressman Henry May were imprisoned. Private citizens in the states bordering the Confederacy were disarmed, in violation of the Second Amendment, and suffered widespread confiscation of private property. The list goes on and on.
Historian Lee Kennett wrote in "Marching Through Georgia" that if the Confederates had won the Civil War they would have been justified in "stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command" as war criminals.
Yet, today, Abraham Lincoln is widely regarded as the greatest American to ever sit in the Oval Office.
This has all happened before, and will no doubt happen again, and the present incumbent is surely more the victim of a "sour grapes" campaign, than in any way a transgressor on the scale of past examples.
It's both regrettable and ironic, in my opinion, but it seems we have always been more interested in this country in results than in method. Some day, I suspect, that will cost us dearly. Some day, I fear, it will cost us everything.
But this is most interesting. Not really got time now to do it justice. Just to say that in essence I think that perhaps one of the greatest skills of leadership is to find that balance between ends and means. When to risk all because the goal is judged (correctly) so important, and when to step back and realise that the method, if wrong, will mar the results even if they are achieved. Morality and conscience come into it too.
It goes to the heart of why I think Obama is better than his immediate predecessors. He has the ability to make that judgement more accurately, and imv with more moral authority. Just my view though.
Good post Ron.