geez, you might think that FDR was in the White House? Oh, sorry, he only tried to stack the Supreme Court, among other things!!!!

the good thing that all liberals overlook about our constitution is the ebb and flow of power. Seems to me that the document works pretty well. Our Founding Fathers certainly knew what they were doing. There are too many "experts" and ivory tower law professors who fail to view events through the scope of time as opposed to the scope of "now". Perspective is a wonderful eyeglass.

Yes, and the older you get the more perspective you have.

My considerable perspective allows me to see that we are rapidly sliding downhill toward something that we will all eventually come to regret.

Did you have a specific, coherent point?

And, since the process/system, as it has been gamed, is the hindrance to fixing the problem, it necessarily means that it cannot be done by "working within the system."

There's another logical fallacy called a false dichotomy. What you're saying is that if you vote for a lesser evil, you're working in the system and therefore cannot change it. But in this case, we can have our cake and eat it too.

We can still push from "outside the system" to try for changes, while still voting for the lesser of two evils. Voting for a lesser evil to prevent a greater evil from gaining power does not necessarily preclude you from attempting to change how the system works.

the good thing that all liberals overlook about our constitution is the ebb and flow of power.

High past time for our unenumerated (and enumerated) powers to ebb from the Executive back to the people.

Seems to me that the document works pretty well. Our Founding Fathers certainly knew what they were doing.

Agree.

There are too many "experts" and ivory tower law professors who fail to view events through the scope of time as opposed to the scope of "now".

Too few, rather. The present situation (no matter what it is) invariably appears addressable by throwing away ancient legal traditions, if they extended their sight even a year into the future from "now", the value of retaining them is obvious.

Perspective is a wonderful eyeglass.

Perspective is lacking on the part of those who want to destroy the checks and balances, not those who want to preserve them.

perhaps someone would have taken the occasion of the passing of Mildred Loving to ask John McCain what he thought of the activist judges who decided Loving v Commonwealth of Virginia.

Since when does a guy who is so retarded he graduates 894 out of 899 in his college class get to opine about matters as lofty as the mythical Unitary Executive.

Note to Grampa McCain: Don't you remember, John, Parliament settled the issue of The King Can Do No Wrong in 1649 when they chopped off Charles I's head.

Glenn, we, your readers, owe you our thanks for paying attention to things that pass below the radar of almost all other journalists, including many on the left. McCain's outrageous speech yesterday is a case in point. The signifcance of his unambiguous opinion on checks and balances cannot be stated too strongly. As clear as day, we can see that Obama is not exaggerating when he says that a John McCain presidency will be equivalent to George Bush's third term.

He voted against the Military Commissions Act. And sponsored amendments to limit its power. And he voted for the restoration of habeas corpus. And against warrantless eavesdropping. And against telecom amnesty. And against Michael Mukasey's nomination. And against the nominations of Executive power worshipers John Roberts and Sam Alito.

These are all BO's individual votes. In all of these instances, how many times did he mount a filibuster to thwart the executive excesses? An individual's vote gives some indication of one's position. Leading a filibuster gives some indication of both one's position and one's ability to build coalitions. How much real change did he bring about? If he didn't build coalitions and didn't apply the power he already had in the Senate to effect change, then on what rational basis should we believe that he will bring about change with the power of the presidency?

I am of the belief that we are in this predicament simply because we refuse to do anything about it.

Do you have a recommended course of action?

Aside from voting for evil, that is..

I've talked to family, friends and anyone else who will listen to the point that no one will listen any more if they ever did to start with.

Most people simply don't give a damn is the conclusion I have reached. They will literally have to be out in the street with nothing to eat before they will believe it can happen to them.

Oh, sorry, he only tried to stack the Supreme Court, among other things!!!!

Very true, but when you consider what those "other things" entailed and what he was attempting to accomplish? Few other Presidents can claim to have advanced (however imperfectly) the collective good and wellbeing of the country as a whole.

the good thing that all liberals overlook about our constitution is the ebb and flow of power. Seems to me that the document works pretty well.

I don't believe anyone here is "overlooking" this point. However our Constitutional framework is itself being summarily dismissed by both the current Administration is its possible successor. The document only "works" if all sides agree to follow it and work within its parameters.

Our Founding Fathers certainly knew what they were doing. There are too many "experts" and ivory tower law professors who fail to view events through the scope of time as opposed to the scope of "now".

We will likely never see the likes of the Constitutional Convention again, but that doesn't mean we can take comfort in their successes while ignoring the very real problems our country faces now. The scope of "now" as you put it is a call to action, not a matter of scholarly reflection.

Perspective is a wonderful eyeglass.

You wear eyeglasses to compensate for myopia or hyperopia. And that same compensation should inform you that the issues before us cannot be solved by simply looking back upon history.