The Growth Of American Executive Power

From Reason:

"...Today's Democratic logic goes like this: If Congress is unable to pass progressive agenda items with a simple majority of legislators (and thankfully, that's the case), the vote of a single person will do just fine. President Obama is, after all, on his "We Can't Wait" tour. "We can't wait for Congress to do its job," Obama told supporters on a recent campaign stop. "So where they won't act, I will. We're going to look every single day to figure out what we can do without Congress."

That's the spirit!

One might forgive a little autocratic hyperbole in the heat of a campaign season, but Obama isn't joking. He can't wait. Only recently, he circumvented Congress on college loans and mortgages; he directed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act; through rulemaking, he empowered the Environmental Protection Agency to effectively institute legislation that Democrats could not pass; he involved the United States in military action in Libya (the right kind of warring, apparently) without congressional consent; he installed four recess appointments without a recess; and that's just for starters.

This week he couldn't wait again. Even if you agree substantively with Obama's decision to grant 800,000 young illegal immigrants a reprieve from deportation -- as I do -- having a president undo a perfectly legitimate legislative deadlock by simply ignoring the law is a precedent that should alarm everyone. So should Obama's invocation of executive privilege in the Fast and Furious gunrunning investigation regarding a document that he supposedly knew nothing about.

No, Obama isn't the first president to issue oodles of executive orders or expand and abuse the power of the presidency. Far from it. Yet, onlookers supposedly horrified by executive overreach a few years ago are doing a terrible job rationalizing it now..."

One of the unique features of the American system was its deliberate design to keep executive (Presidential) powers limited. As opposed to the Parliamentary system where the Prime Minister exercises more power. It's looking more and more like this line is getting blurred - the wrong way - in the United States.

I think, and this is just an observation, too much is put on ONE person. The President - that is, any President - seems to feel the need to impose, intervene or interject on too many issues that shouldn't really be of their concern. There's only so much one person can do.

I always understood the role of the President - as it was originally intended - to be an over seer. A "is everything ok, here?" type of approach. Moreover, a person of profound intelligence and knowledge tempered with wisdom and substantial life and employment experiences. A person equipped with just the right balance of confidence and humility to make them unique leaders.