It would be wonderful," Paltrow said of Obama, "if we were able to give this man all of the power …
It would be wonderful," Paltrow said of Obama, "if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs to pass the things that he needs to pass."
No, it would not. No person should have such power. Thankfully, the founders of the nation disagreed.
I don't want to pick on Paltrow. She seems like a nice person, and I don't hate people because they are celebrities, or because they are celebrities who talk about politics. She can get as involved as she wants to. The more, the merrier.
I am posting this because this idea is so common today, and it is so anti-American, and we need to stop giving credence to it. Members of Congress even push this terrible notion, with insane assertions that the Congress has some sort of obligation to give the President what he wants. We need to stop this madness.
The Congress should do what it thinks is best and is within its power to do, and the President should do what he thinks is best and is within his power to do, and the two should work together to pass laws where they can agree to do so; and if they cannot agree, then no laws should be passed.
Remember, folks, that any unilateral power you give to Obama, is also going to be given to the next President you dislike. We ensure the President does not have all the power to pass what he thinks he needs to pass. We do this intentionally and purposefully, not necessarily because we don't trust the current President, but because we don't trust the next one, or the one after that.
No one (except maybe Thomas Paine) thought George Washington would abuse the office. But they were not so sure about John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.
Limits on power are essential and important. Obama may be so handsome that we cannot speak properly, but we can't abandon rational thought along with our power of speech.
The actress hosted a fundraiser for Obama at her Los Angeles home Thursday.
Leave a comment