There is a reason why the President of the United States is called the Commander-in-Chief and it is not because we want a monarch. It is simply because someone in our government needs to take charge and do something.
We are a nation at risk of flying apart and falling apart, just as we were in 1787, and the prevention of that requires a firm leader who is willing to call the shots no matter how unpopular those decisions might be and no matter who disagrees with him.
It would not seem, at first blush, to be particularly helpful to use drone attacks to incinerate people who preach against al Qaeda. But I'm sure I am overthinking things. Omelettes and eggs, after all. Best not to question it.
Anyone who thinks congressional Republicans will roll over on the debt ceiling or gun control or other pending hot-button issues hasn't been paying attention. But the president can use certain tools that come with his office to achieve some of his objectives.
It's not just legal action that is important here either: the regulations being written right now under Dodd-Frank will go a long ways toward either helping or hurting our chances of getting back on the path to a strong economy.
In the last decade a high-tech, privatized, covert version of war has become presidential property, fought at the White House's behest by robots, warrior corporations, and two presidentially controlled "private" forces.
As an executive, you're called upon to deliver important messages to your organization and the marketplace. People look to you to set the tone in public speaking. You want to come across as a strong leader, but natural. That's why you need to master the Teleprompter.
What we do right now, or fail to do, will determine what kind of world will greet the millennial anniversary of Magna Carta. It is not an attractive prospect if present tendencies persist -- not least, because the Great Charter is being shredded before our eyes.
Back when he was a candidate, then-Senator Obama criticized President George W. Bush for his frequent reliance on signing statements to circumvent Congressional intent. What a difference executive power makes.
U.S. immigration policy still needs to be fixed. The American people would be better served if Congress worked towards constructive solutions to this challenge, rather than engaged in political theater.
Up until this week, I would have said that George W. Bush was the most aggressive president in modern times in exercising executive power. Now, I can honestly say President Obama is giving "W." a run for his money.
Progressives need to spend less time commiserating over all the good things that Congress should do but won't, and more time thinking about the things Obama could do if he aggressively seized the reins of government.