It's like someone took the balance of powers and shot it into orbit

[ck4829]

Did you notice that there's no such thing as a unitary legislative or a unitary judicial branch?
Only the Executive branch gets this privilege, apparently.

Whenever the judicial branch 'oversteps' it's boundaries, it gets accused of "judicial activism" or "judicial tyranny" by conservatives (Actually called judicial review, and it's constitutional, by the way).
I have yet to hear of any pundits saying that the politicizing of federal departments or the power grabs of the executive branch as being "executive activism" or "executive tyranny", why is that?

Recently, the Bush Administration tried to "fast-track" a free trade agreement with Colombia in Congress. Now I know the executive branch can suggest that Congress go over some legislation, but the intent of this "fast-track" was to force Congress to vote on something.

Where did the Senate's Constitutionally given "advise-and-consent" role go? It seems like the judicial nominees are not being nominated as a result of the Senate's recommendations, but from the recommendations from the Federalist Society.

When you want to keep your private life private, the conservatives will say "If you've got nothing to hide, then you've got nothing to fear."
But when the executive branch makes things secret (like with the Energy Task Force), conservatives and the media will... well, they actually don't like to talk about that.

If our nation became a dictatorship, thinking logically now, which branch would it come from?

This isn't to say that Bush himself would do this, but it is imperative that we cut all this excess power to the executive branch of as soon as possible.

[Benhurst]

1. And where were our leaders?

Reid? Pelosi? Clinton? Obama?

Bob Barr, of all people, has been quite outspoken about this and the shredding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But our "leaders" have been too busy playing nice and rolling over for George Bush.

To what offices and how many more do we have to elect for them to grow spines? Or do do they approve of the destruction of our historic form of government?

And what, other than their cushy jobs and extravagant pensions, did they have to lose by speaking out in the first place?

[Doug.Goodall]

2. Republicans are ideologues

They are prepared to do what ever it takes to advance their brand of society on us. Bush was unsuccessful at becoming the all powerful dictator. His adherence to the Republican ideology allows him to sacrifice himself for the purpose of installing a Republican on the throne in the future.