Your comment, We really are a nutty people. Deep down we must love hypocrisy and idiocy reminded me of something I read last night on medieval civilization. The author observed that Christian Europe treated its "wretches, whom it identified with Christ, just as it treated Christ, who was fascinating but terrifying to them."

It's no coincidence (to me, at any rate) that the scandals we have routinely inflicted on us come from those who rage the loudest over matters of morality--which is to say their definition of if, usually if not exclusively sexual in nature (language being reflective of that).

Of course, maybe I'm wrong. In which case, well, fuck me.

I won't call you any names (not being a troll). I'll just say my middle ages reference was better than yours: During the middle ages ....

The funny thing is: if I had written about one of the topics which the critics are insisting is the Most Important Topic of the Day -- say, Rahm Emanuel - someone else would have come and said: "Oh, this is just one administrative appointment. Big deal. What about Guantanamao closing? Isn't that more important than who Obama's Chief of Staff is?"

Very good.

"I'm sure I'll lose sleep over the insults of a bunch of anonymous retards who worship a blogger like he's the second coming."

Okay, who let the cat out of the bag? Are UT's Masonic secrets given away so freely?

my attention, among other things:

Many of the policies he is contemplating changing via Executive Order were ones that were improperly created by Executive Order in the first place. And, principally, it's the responsibility of Congress to defend its constitutionally assigned powers, not of Obama to refrain from encroaching on them.

I've noticed that the tenor of discussion elsewhere (providing no links as I'm too lazy to do that), whether it's about Lieberman or executive orders, rarely includes mention that these are not appropriately the prerogatives of the Executive Branch. I attribute this to a near Stockholm Syndrome among the public, Congress and media as a consequence of imperial presidency.

Isn't Obama:

(a) still a US Senator, and

(b) the de facto leader of the Democratic Party?

He's not able to exert such influence (regarding Lieberman) merely as just "still a US Senator." He didn't and, had he lost, wouldn't have the power to pull that off. The second issue is more to the point; he's the "de facto leader of the Democratic Party" because he's just been elected President. Even though he hasn't yet taken the oath of office, I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest he's not attempting to exert anticipated presidential authority.

To whatever extent Obama issues Executive Orders that merely reverse Bush (and maybe even pre-Bush) Executive Orders, I'd be perfectly fine with that. It'd feel like an undo. Then Congress can, if it so chooses, decide what to do about the issue.

This seems to me to perpetuate the problem. Acting unconstitutionally to correct unconstitutionality sounds, well, unconstitutional.

So now we have Harry Reid, who can't throw a turncoat out of a chairmanship without asking permission, and allowed a completely inappropriate expedited filibuster mechanism to paralyze his senate.

Self-inflicted institutional weakness is most definitely the prime cause of this problem. I've been in a perpetual state of bogglement over the use of this so-called filibuster.

Your's was a nicely written comment.

No legal eagle am I (not even a sparrow), but when you say an EO is NOT a law, and But the president is expected to cite the law (written by Congress) that justifies an executive order. It can't, in principle, contravene the law, isn't that just the problem? Along with signing statements, hasn't the effect of EOs been to simply ignore the legislature and, in effect, permit the Executive branch to legislate?

Glenn writes: Just consider reports this week that Obama intends to use unilaterally issued, unchecked Executive Orders, rather than acts of Congress, to dictate outcomes on a whole range of politically controversial policy debates that are so plainly the province of the Congress to legislate -- from restrictions on stem-cell research funding to regulations governing aid to foreign family planning groups to oil drilling.

These don't approximate the example you gave, that "it can be something like "All federal prosecutors should go prosecute medical marijuana users and stop wasting time on counterfeiters." The example you give seems appropriate to the powers of the Executive--what issues federal prosecutors should direct their attention to.

The examples Glenn cites are, as he says, "plainly the province of the Congress to legislate.

However, I could be wrong. We sparrows often are.

Paul Dirks--thanks for that TPM link. I was perplexed by the conclusion, however, that "the move is all but certain to take the steam out of any efforts to dislodge Lieberman ...." That seems the reverse of what the article was suggesting.

For example, the National Science Foundation is headed by people appointed by the President. They're confirmed by Congress, but serve the Executive Branch. So if the president issues an EO that forbids them to fund any research involving stem cells, is that an appropriate act or an improper appropriation of Congressional power?

I imagine, given this EO abuse (which, I agree, didn't begin with, but was perfected by, Bush) that the only way around it is either to legislate in anticipation of EO overreach (in this case, legislate in favor of stem cell research), or be prepared to amend the appropriate legislation following the issuance of an EO.

As to the question in your example, would that be "an appropriate act or an improper appropriation of Congressional power," well that one's beyond me. I disturbs me to think that legislators would have to spend their time nervously anticipating what a President might do to undercut a given piece of legislation. Then again, it's probably always been that way.