I see how that was unconstitutional, but I don't see how it eliminated any checks or balances.
Because if we agree that it was unconstitutional, it should have been checked and balanced. That's what those people are there for. If the President is just going to run amok, we might as well just have a King and be done with it.
You not liking the result does not mean that checks and balances are not there. If the congress doesn't think the president is doing his job properly they have a check they can use.
OMG what of this are you not comprehending??? This is plain and simple English. I'ma type slow so you read every word, ya hear?
If the branches of government do not choose to check and balance each other, that would mean (now pay attention) that we do not have a true mechanism in place with which to check a power mad president (let's just say) from doing whatever the hell he wants - whether it's unconstitutional, a freaking criminal act, whatever.
Now did you read that last sentence?
I don't believe you. Go back and read it.
This not about Obama, so get off of that line of thought. <--- Read that again. Stop talking about Obama. They ALL do it. All of them. All of our branches of government are political and partisan, whether the majority is Republican or Democrat. So pick your wedgie and stop defending that guy in the White House that you're so in love with.
Jeebus.