Trump's nomination is the first time US politics has left me truly afraid

[Devout Centrist]

I don't always agree with Mr. Klein (a very smart and informed liberal), e.g., his odes of joy about Obamacare, but I do as to this piece - each and every word. Pity that it was not complete. Hey Ezra, why did you skip over that Trump has little or no respect for the rule of law, and his bellicosity might get us into wars, in particular a trade war, but even more worrisome, wars where blood is spilled (except with respect to his favorite dictators of course)?

Oh, he skipped those two cause they don't apply to Trump. In fact, it is far more likely Hillary will start new wars because of her bellicosity. And it's not even disputed that she has little or no respect for the rule of law.

That's what I don't get. I mean, I understand you don't like Trump. But why do you accuse him of the two things which are actually Hillary trademark?

"Not even disputed that she doesn't respect the rule of law."

Maybe so in your echo chamber, but certainly I take issue with that statement.

[Devout Centrist]

The doctor analogy is completely inappropriate. The main job of the chief executive of the country is to act as an executive. The President doesn't create laws, and the President doesn't interpret laws. The President will sign or veto legislation sent to him, will put together a cabinet that will handle the nitty gritty of governance, will appoint federal judges, and will provide direction via the bully pulpit. That's it.

The President also has broad executive authority to act autonomously, is commander-in-chief of the military, and conducts foreign relations (along with the Secretary of State, who in the "unitary theory" of the Executive, serves at the pleasure of the President).

And if Trump, who shows little regard or even understanding of our system of government and Constitution, oversteps his legal authority, who is going to stop him?  Do you think, what, Congress or the DoJ or the Supreme Court is going to send federal marshals to seize him in some kind of coup?  No.  His actions will have to be legally challenged by a damaged party and go through the entire judicial system - a process that could take months - or he would need to be impeached and convicted - a process which could take months - all while Trump continues to hold the reins of power.

There is a difference between authority and power.  There are a lot of things the President doesn't have the legal authority to do, but has the power to do nonetheless.

President Obama has been acting with too much autonomy, taking advantage of way too many executive actions. This is not in line with the Constitution, and to my thinking, represents an overstepping of his legal authority. And the Supreme Court has ruled 12 times that President Obama has gone out-of-bounds with regard to his executive actions.

So yes, his actions had to be legally challenged and go through the entire judicial system - a process that took several months, and all while Obama continued to hold the reins of power. That's the way the system has been designed to work. Once elected, if either Trump or Clinton oversteps their authority, someone must bring a court case or begin impeachment proceedings. That's exactly how things are supposed to work, and it doesn't matter who is in office. Your comments indicate that you believe Trump would act inappropriately, but again, Obama has been ruled against a dozen times by the high court. So you tell me: who is it that doesn't understand his role within our system of government? 'Cuz from where I'm sitting, the name causing the most grief is not Donald Trump, it's Barack Obama. And guess what? He continues to hold the reins of power...

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/07/obama-and-executive-overreach/

Quite a strong claim in the absence of any concrete evidence, don't you think?

[Devout Centrist]

The doctor analogy is completely inappropriate. The main job of the chief executive of the country is to act as an executive. The President doesn't create laws, and the President doesn't interpret laws. The President will sign or veto legislation sent to him, will put together a cabinet that will handle the nitty gritty of governance, will appoint federal judges, and will provide direction via the bully pulpit. That's it.

The President also has broad executive authority to act autonomously, is commander-in-chief of the military, and conducts foreign relations (along with the Secretary of State, who in the "unitary theory" of the Executive, serves at the pleasure of the President).

And if Trump, who shows little regard or even understanding of our system of government and Constitution, oversteps his legal authority, who is going to stop him?  Do you think, what, Congress or the DoJ or the Supreme Court is going to send federal marshals to seize him in some kind of coup?  No.  His actions will have to be legally challenged by a damaged party and go through the entire judicial system - a process that could take months - or he would need to be impeached and convicted - a process which could take months - all while Trump continues to hold the reins of power.

There is a difference between authority and power.  There are a lot of things the President doesn't have the legal authority to do, but has the power to do nonetheless.

President Obama has been acting with too much autonomy, taking advantage of way too many executive actions. This is not in line with the Constitution, and to my thinking, represents an overstepping of his legal authority. And the Supreme Court has ruled 12 times that President Obama has gone out-of-bounds with regard to his executive actions.

So yes, his actions had to be legally challenged and go through the entire judicial system - a process that took several months, and all while Obama continued to hold the reins of power. That's the way the system has been designed to work. Once elected, if either Trump or Clinton oversteps their authority, someone must bring a court case or begin impeachment proceedings. That's exactly how things are supposed to work, and it doesn't matter who is in office. Your comments indicate that you believe Trump would act inappropriately, but again, Obama has been ruled against a dozen times by the high court. So you tell me: who is it that doesn't understand his role within our system of government? 'Cuz from where I'm sitting, the name causing the most grief is not Donald Trump, it's Barack Obama. And guess what? He continues to hold the reins of power...

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/07/obama-and-executive-overreach/

Quite a strong claim in the absence of any concrete evidence, don't you think?

Absence of concrete evidence? I don't think so. Then again, I don't think the President can avoid dealing with Congress, which is the whole point...

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/obamas-executive-orders/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Artful sidestep, but I referring to your claim that the Supreme Court has ruled, "12 times," in opposition to Obama's use of executive action.

The issue remains legally contentious and there's little to point to a consensus from the Supreme Court, as conservative legal pundits have claimed.