"Lets try to keep things in context. Our government is set up with checks and balances. These do not work when one branch goes beneath the surface and acts alone, and in secrecy. This kind of behavior is directly in conflict with the Constitution, where the roles and responsibilities for the branches are established, with those checks and balances. ..."

Well of course they work. That was the whole point of Watergate, Iran-Contra, and Whitewater. Also the occasional overturning of congressionally sanctioned, executive activities by the Supreme Court. All of these actions serve to keep the executive under some sort of control.

If Congress doesn't like the Executive's actions, they have the power to stop it. Same with the Supremes. Now it may be that some citizens see executive actions that they may believe are in conflict with their particular understanding of proper governance. Those folks will be dissappointed when nobody gives a $hit. Then they begin lookign for reasons and usually settle on a conspiracy of one sort or another. But conspiracies are almost always unnecessary. Government is usually pretty obvious. Both hosues of Congress are run by the same party as the presidency. They aren't going to turn-out their boy without an awful lot of hard evidence. They certainly wont do it based on hot conjecture and loud bluster.

The voters have decided to put the people who are in power, in power. So long as those elected persons are in power, they will act in what they believe is in the best interest of governance. If the citizens don't like it, they will have an excellent opportunity to turn-out the elected goofballs and stick another set of goofballs in.

Bot