Is the concept of separation of powers really that hard?
Only if you view genuine political arguments through jaundiced eyes
It began with Reince (retweeting John)
Which didn’t set well with Ron
Which didn’t set well with me
Which got Ron in high dudgeon
Which didn’t make any sense at all
It’s like my friends in my college days who couldn’t understand why I would embrace the gospel “because everybody interprets the Bible differently.”
In other words, how could you know what is true if everybody could look at a passage of scripture and see whatever they wanted.
Which is, basically, a dodge.
A very lazy dodge.
Which is what Ron is doing now and has done before on this subject:
Most of the Constitution is written in pretty straightforward, albeit somewhat archaic, middle-brow English. It doesn’t take a scholar to read and understand the vast majority of it.
I mean look Article I, Section 1:
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
—Article I, Section 1, The Constitution of the United States
We’re not talking about the difficult stuff here. Just Separation of Powers 101.
The president doesn’t get to make law. That’s what the legislative branch—the Congress—does.
He doesn’t get to rewrite the law. That’s what the legislative branch—the Congress—does.
But it’s what he tried doing with the employer mandate portion of Obamacare.
And apparently the Democrats—and Ron Fournier—are okay with that.
And neither is anyone who reads the Constitution carefully, with respect—and with enough self-discipline to keep from reading their own prejudices into it.
It’s only difficult when you want it to be.