Were you not paying attention to pretty much any of my posts from September through November of this past year?

I don't know how to answer that without hurting your feelings.

I have thicker skin than most. But seriously, I'm not sure there's a poster here who is more libertarian-minded than I am in regards to the federal government.

Mr Reason

Separation of powers has been eroded with the courts and executive branches stealing much of the spoils. The courts tend to overrule properly enacted legislation even going as far as to help re-write the laws they overrule. The executive branch is clearly trying to make government work because of of do-nothing legislative bodies. Heck even Pat Quinn is talking about a pension commission that would be empowered to change the IL pension rules without legislative approval.

I don't agree with it, but I understand why it is happening.

Uh, no. To characterize Ivan like that is extremely disingenuous. I just didn't know if he was stirring, as he has done from time to time.

I daresay also that you demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of the real problem at hand here - not that you're alone ... there's far too many millions of people with the same blindness - and that is the fact that the office of the Presidency has suffered mission creep since the Civil War.

For one thing, the President was never intended to be the 'face' of the nation, let alone it's "leader". For another, this whole executive order bullshit flies in the face of how shit was set up in the first place, regardless of which presidential penis pushes the pen to paper.

I've only skimmed bits here and there, but "The Cult of the Presidency" (or something quite similar ... don't have it handy here) would seem to do a very fair and very clear walkthrough of history that has led us to what we have now, which isn't so much an administrative President, but far moreso a "daddy in chief". People that think that's a good idea can line up around the block to suck my dick, frankly.

But, back to the original point, I don't think it's fair to broadbrush Ivan like that, as there's really no evidence that he would think like that.

I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?