Then what’s the point of having a Congress at all? What’s the point of having a judicial branch? All these different branches (somewhat) hinder Obama from being the benevolent dictator that he rightfully wants to be. Then, maybe he’d actually get things done.
One of Obama’s head cheerleaders Ed Schultz, on the most watched TV show in the nation, said that he hoped Obama wouldn’t pull any punches in his State of the Union address; that he wouldn’t say anything about wanting to “work with Republicans.” After all, he should be putting his foot down; laying down the law; and bypassing Congress to get things done. CNS News transcribed part of his monologue:
“President Obama is exactly right to take action without Congress, and he would be inept if he did not do it on the part of the progressive movement, because that’s what he ran on – hope and change. We done the hoping. It’s time for the changing…. Mr. President, don’t let me turn the TV off tomorrow night. I want to see a different guy up there tomorrow night. If you can call out the Supreme Court on Citizens United, I think he can do just about anything at the State of the Union and keep it real interesting for the American people…. So there’s only a window of opportunity for the president to get the attention of the American people, use the pen and actually do something, because legislatively, the Republicans aren’t going to give him anything. The American people are counting on the president to be forceful across the board.”
The reason we don’t have a king (or at least we’re not supposed to have a king) is so that power isn’t concentrated in one person. The various branches are supposed to provide a balance of power. Didn’t we fight a war to get away from a monarchy? We had a Republic, as Ben Franklin said, “if we could keep it.”