What has happened to our balance of power

Here is a link to the entire consitutition as this discussion requires basically a look at the entire document. Constitution

The basic responsibilities of each branch of our Government are as follows and none are subservient or reliant on the other.

Legislative Branch: The most important duty of the legislative branch is to make laws. Laws are written, discussed and voted on in Congress.

Executive Branch: approves and carries out laws passed by the legislative branch. He appoints or removes cabinet members and officials. He negotiates treaties, and acts as head of state and commander in chief of the armed forces.

Judicial Branch: Through court cases, the judicial branch explains the meaning of the Constitution and laws passed by Congress.

I have been thinking about and wondering what has happened to the balance of power supposedly built into our constitution. First lets be clear that the Presidential oath of office is the the last sentence of Article II, Section I of the Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I was under the impression that The responsibilities of the President according to that Constitution were:

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.


Section I, Aricle I says "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." No where do I see that the President is to propose legislation, lobby for that legislation, broker deals to achieve that legislation and only then will he enforce the laws passed by the legislature. In fact it is quite the opposite. So how is it that we have a legislative agenda for our puppet congress that is completely set and driven by the President. That is how a private company may be run but private companies are not representative democracies concerned about limited power over their subjects and individual rights and freedoms.

We have a President who is treating the congress like they are his underlings and subject to his control and direction. Amazingly, many of the democrats have succumbed to that view and are marching to that drum, all in ignorance of the constitution to which was sworn an oath to uphold. The republicans are a non event in either body of congress and as such have been completely eliminated from discussion regarding any of the Obama administration agenda items. It has been proven they do not need one republican vote to achieve the White House goals and thus all of the pay offs and "negotiation" have been among democrats only. They only have to compromise enough to get all the democrats in support of legislation and it will be passed. Which by the way and while talking about "pay offs", what does the first paragraph of section 8 of the constitution mean? It says, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States". Yet to accomplish the Executive branch of the federal governments agenda, the Legislative branch has made many special deals regarding what I view to be tax breaks to individual states. I would assert there are about 4 claims of unconstitutional actions in just the last sentence.

It seems that the White House although headed up by a person who is said to be a "Constitutional Scholar" is very negligent of the duties afforded the Executive Branch and has involved itself in the very minute detail of the Legislative branch of government. And now with a loss of the filibuster proof senate they are convening to determine how to continue the accomplishment of their agenda when even the most liberal of states has spoken they are out of touch with the American People. The White House has attacked the very candidate they were supporting two days ago as incompetent and incapable of running an effective campaign and says had they been asked for help sooner they could have guided her to a victory. Yet the victorious candidate made the very core issue that of the White House agenda. I don't see how more closely aligning with the White House could have helped her and would have hurt her even more. But then that is what this White House does, they attack and smear anyone who doesn't support their agenda or who may be a threat to that agenda, even if the people they are actually attacking are the American people who have spoken at the ballot box. The second American Revolution has again started in the most unlikely of places, Massachusetts. The White House and the media under their control has attacked the Tea Party movement as out of touch and didn't that also occur in Boston Harbor. Anyone who respected the will of the people would alter their agenda after this Massachusetts election rather than attack the candidate and the electorate. But they (progressive democrats) believe the electorate is not even smart enough to make their own decisions if they are in disagreement with those decisions. This begins to sound like some of the most radical dictators of the 20th century and not the elected leaders of the USA who are to serve the people who elected them and support the Constitution. At what point do we begin to consider this type of action treason.