Checks and Balances

"President Obama is taking a swipe at the Founding Fathers, blaming his inability to move his agenda on the “disadvantage” of having each state represented equally in the Senate."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/23/obama-blames-structural-design-congress-gridlock/#ixzz32dDWsG00

I know each side would like to implement every last piece of their agenda. The Constitution helps to keep that kind of destruction from happening in many instances with the systems of checks and balances.

This President is not good at compromise. Stop! I know some of you will jump to his defense--I am not saying he never makes a compromise; just that he is not good at it. I'll accept the notion that the Republicans are not willing to compromise at this point, either. I don't really blame them totally since most of his offers of compromise seem to start with it having to be his way or the highway, but I think the Republicans could have made political hay by indicating and pushing for some things where they could agree to compromise.

The statement of the President bugs me because this same man told us earlier that elections do have consequences. One of them was the passing of the ACA. Now elections have consequences he is not so fond of and there is a structural problem with the Constitution.

I'm glad that there are checks and balances in our system.

I said to people from day one that Obama would not be an efffective leader because he always had been part of a large majority and never had to work with the other party. He didn't even have to talk to them. When he forst took over he had a supermajority and all the push the media has ever given to anyone, ever. To make matters worse, he never stopped campaigning, kept rubbing the other side's nose in their loss. Smart leaders do not do that because they know you will eventually need to work with them.

Then he lost the House and it was a never-ending "wahh wahh wahh, they won't do what I say!" Now he is very likely to lose the Senate and it is "wahh, wahh, wahh, that stupid COnstitution was set up so I can't do what I want!"

You would think that a supposed Constitutional Scholar would understand that the US Constitution was set up so it would be hard, VERY HARD, to make new laws. Almost every new law is a reduction of personal freedom. Obama doesn't understand this. He thinks government control is good and that we should just let him make our decisions. He has no trust that most people will do the right thing most times. He believes in equality of outcome not equality of freedom and opportunity.

His crybaby antics so far are nothing compared to the hissy fit he will throw should he lose the Senate. What amazes me is how many people buy his act.

Being a leader requires the ability and desire to lead. Any ten cent bureaucrat out there can rail on about how those silly little rules in the Constitution make it hard to take everything away from the people or to do everything that a particular party or person would like to get done. His experiences were not in leadership and it is very evident in the way he talks about his adversaries.

I understand those of you who support the President will say that others talk badly about him. Yes, they do. The Presidency is supposed to be bigger than that. The President alone has control of 1/3 of the government process--he has a big role to fulfill. What we get is someone who is so out of it that he only finds out about potential issues via the news media.

Being a leader is hard work. You have to work within the framework of the organization you are running. Suggesting that your failures are somehow a failure of the framework is ridiculous. Didn't his stint as a Constitutional scholar teach him that?

Quote: RonC

Being a leader is hard work. You have to work within the framework of the organization you are running. Suggesting that your failures are somehow a failure of the framework is ridiculous. Didn't his stint as a Constitutional scholar teach him that?

The thing is he doesn't like the US Constitution. He wants a constitution with "positive rights." E.G.: "Everyone has a right to health care, everyone has a right to a home, ......"

It would be as if Apple hired a CEO who said, "Hey, I'm going to bring my Windows laptop and Andriod phone to work, is that an issue?"