"The Administration's decision not to try to break up the big banks or prosecute any of their executives allowed the Tea Party, not the Democratic Party, to mobilize all the anger abroad in the land. Obama, who months ago told David Remnick that he did not think a President could change the direction of the country--and that that was "a good thing"--has left the field clear for others to try to do so."
Is breaking up the banks any longer even feasible, under a banking system now left in place, and so deeply entrenched, for so many decades?
What is the role of a President under the constitution? It was a somewhat weak and somewhat unbalanced one.
It would have been unthinkable for the founders to have imagined that a President should try singlehandedly to change the direction of the country.
Thus, I believe, about this, Obama is quite right, and adverting to the Presidential 'excesses' of Lincoln, or FDR, Nixon, for instance, Lyndon Johnson perhaps, Bush One or Bush Two, or even Jefferson re the Louisiana Purchase (not that the purchase was not a good thing to have done), as constitutional aberrations of a weak branch within a weak system.
Thus, I believe, about this, Obama is quite right, and adverting to the Presidential 'excesses' of Lincoln, or FDR, Nixon, for instance, Lyndon Johnson perhaps, Bush One or Bush Two, or even Jefferson re the Louisiana Purchase (not that the purchase was not a good thing to have done), as constitutional aberrations of a weak branch within a weak system.
No comments:
Post a Comment