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.

And yet what high profile organizations are out there advocating for a return to a sane balance of power? Even the ALCU, according to your interview yesterday, was advocating a number of executive orders for Obama to implement. Forgive me if I misunderstood or you addressed in the comments, but it seems to me that most people out there on the progressive side are eager for Obama to exercise his new found power in pursuit of their political goals. I keep coming back to what the ED of the ALCU in your interview kept saying, how we don't want these matters tied up by "partisan nitpicking". And thats the freaking ALCU thats saying that!

Barack Obama is a United States Senator. He has a vote in the Democratic Caucus. Also, he certainly has a right to express his opinion about how the Senate should deal with Holy Joe, as he is the leader of the Democratic Party and this concerns HJ's status within the party.

That said, the other Democratic Senators are of course free to vote however they choose. But for Obama to express his opinion is not to usurp the powers of the legislative branch. That's really over the top.

But until he gets rid of the FISA law HE VOTED FOR, I will not support him.

He got my vote and my encouragement to OTHERS to vote for him over McCain. But that won't last if he doesn't prove he's a Constitutional law professor and REJECT the FISA bill by getting rid of it, one way or another.

I also share your concern, but with one thought.

I am reading that Bush is writing (up to 100's) of executive orders in these last few months, if Obama simply undoes them, is that acceptable? Isn't that just taking things back to the status quo?

In a perfect world this power will be taken away from a President, but power once given is rerely thrown away and I trusted only two candidates in that respect and they were "fringe".

But for Obama to express his opinion is not to usurp the powers of the legislative branch. That's really over the top.

You seem to be under the impression that I believe, and argued, that "for Obama to express his opinion is to usurp the powers of the legislative branch."

Would you mind showing me where I said or even implied that?

Good luck w/ that, methinks.

In TX they have these bizarre (to me) "straight ticket" options on the ballot - you can literally, w/ a single stroke of your pen, vote for every single candidate in either one of the two Corporatist parties.

Here's how I'd like to tweak that concept just a little bit. Keep the "straight ticket" idea. Only you can vote for "Incumbents", or "Challengers".

Needs work, I know, sometimes there's more than one Challenger - but at least there ought to be a way to say "Off w/ their Heads!" with a stroke of the pen.

(a) still a US Senator, and

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

I can see crying foul in 3 months over this, but this criticism seems a little premature.

Remember the Executive Orders flying out of the White House on the VERY FIRST DAY of Bush's reign as Boy King? They wasted no time.

Neither should Obama.

The legal framework for Exec Orders is a leftover from WW II, I believe. Constitutional or not, it's there, it is a real power, and it's not going away CONVENIENTLY as soon as a half-assed progressive gets into the White House.

Relax.

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.

As you (sort of) recognize, can we just wait until he actually does something to start criticizing him for it? The tendency of the press and, unfortunately, the left blogosphere to go nuts over every unsourced rumor about what Obama's going to do or whom he's going to appoint is already driving me nuts. Let the man take office first.

And let's evaluate his actions on their merits, please. Some executive orders would be completely proper, others not. The fact that there's a rumor he might use that power does not make him some power-mad executive hell-bent on destroying the Constitution.

Many of the policies he is contemplating changing via Executive Order were ones that were improperly implemented by Executive Order in the first place.

So can such executive orders be rescinded (executive order #a is no longer in effect), or must a new order be put in place (executive order #b is issued with new action that in effect make executive order #a no longer apply)?

I would feel a lot more comfortable with the first.

I was making my reflexive checkmark by "restoration of Habeas Corpus" refers to aliens, when it occured to me to ask...

If non-citizens can vote, access healthcare, have the same legal rights as everyone else, what value is there in being a US citizen? Would anyone like to respond to that?

undoing EOs that Bush used?

that the use of executive powers contemplated (apparently) by the new President will restore rights that were abrogated by the existing one?

As you (sort of) recognize, can we just wait until he actually does something to start criticizing him for it? The tendency of the press and, unfortunately, the left blogosphere to go nuts over every unsourced rumor about what Obama's going to do or whom he's going to appoint is already driving me nuts. Let the man take office first.

I don't think there is much criticism of Obama in what I wrote, if there is any. To the contrary, knowing that anything that even gets close to a criticism of Obama would be reflexively interpreted and then rejected as such (thereby distracting from the point I was trying to make), I went out of my way to write this caveat:

Let's be clear: Obama didn't create these erosions and he hasn't even been inaugurated yet, so it's irrational to begin blaming him for this state of affairs.

Is there any way I could have been clearer? If so, let me know, because I really don't want 500 comments today telling me how terrible it was of me to blame Obama when I haven't done that.

Nonetheless, the reports about executive orders aren't just unsourced rumors. They're confirmed, in general, by his transition chief, John Podesta.

The focal point here is far more about urging Congress to defend its prerogatives than it is about anything else.