There is a document that outlines the scope and powers of the federal government. It is called the Constitution. By continually granting itself powers outside its charter, the federal government has indeed made itself dictatorial. It decides what powers it has and how it will apply them to the citizenry, the law be damned.

Witness, just since the turn of the millenium, the PATRIOT act, Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, Gitmo, warrantless wiretaps, SarbOx, Kelo v. New London, TARP I, and the soon to be Obama stimulus plan. None of these actions have a clear basis in the document that provides for the federal government’s powers. Despite taking these actions using the organs of constitutional government, this is what dictatorships do.

Would you care to attempt to defend the above list of actions as being Constitutional by pointing each one back to a specific clause in that document, or will you simply admit that the logic in the post and in this comment are simply above your pay grade?

Also, if you’re quite sure this site isn’t worth paying attention to, why exactly do you waste your time here?

Isn’t that in the end what absolute rule is? The functions of a state are lawmaking, law-enforcement, and dispute arbitration.

Nor are dictators immune to resistance. Saddam Hussein, for example was a dictator, yet he owed his position to his ability to negotiate with tribal elders in order to mute opposition.

An absolute ruler can get his way whenever he chooses to. He won’t always exercise that, but when he decides something, he doesn’t need anyone’s approval; in fact, he’ll rarely even tolerate anybody openly questioning his judgement.

One idea might be for them to return to the concept for which they were named: republicanism.

“silly nonsense”
“moron”
“brainless”

The contrast between a meaningless post and a logical assertion that is researched and linked is indeed evident. Though which posts qualify as meaningless seem to differ based on the observer.

And to answer Robb’s question for myself, I’d say this evaluation extends to Mr. Obama’s term(s) as well. The trend towards effective monocracy is not limited to Mr. Bush. He’s just a recent two-term example. Dictatorships that are perceived as enlightened and/or benevolent are nonetheless subject to the same risks and flaws as dictatorships which are generally perceived as harmful: the federal government moves the nation on the whim of one person. It’s the “rule of man” versus the “rule of law” thing.

And though I see the term abused much more often than I see it used well, I’ve have to say this trend in our government is precisely what I’d call “Un-American”.

Isn’t that in the end what absolute rule is? The functions of a state are lawmaking, law-enforcement, and dispute arbitration.

Nor are dictators immune to resistance. Saddam Hussein, for example was a dictator, yet he owed his position to his ability to negotiate with tribal elders in order to mute opposition.

A dictator is a monarch who is both law-maker and law enforcer, who also acts as final judicial arbiter in cases, and is not legally liable for his actions.

Can you defend this definition? The definitions I looked at consistently used the term “absolute rule”. The modern presidency certainly has a far wider scope than envisioned by the Founders, but it’s still a long way “absolute”. Witness the smackdown Bush got vis-a-vis social security.

Perhaps you should rework the article a bit, because I think your central point is absolutely correct.