Thanks for the civics lesson. BTW, the executive branch is just as weak as the legislative branch (and the judicial branch for that matter). Also, there is a current thought that we have a pseudo 4th branch of government due to the size of government - Agency Bureau Branch.
To paint President Obama's involvement as arms length and just a spectator is intellectually dishonest.
He's the guy who made promises to the gay community. With friendly supermajorities in the house and senate, along with occupying the white house, why isn't this issue put to rest quickly?
In Federalist No. 51, Madison said that it's fundamentally impossible for the three branches to be equal, or for each branch to be able to check another branch with equal effectiveness. "In Republican government, the legislative branch necessarily predominates." It still holds true today, because no other branch can CREATE laws the way the legislation can. The Judicial is trying to overstep its bounds with judicial activism, and the president is trying to overstep HIS bounds with legislative executive orders, but in the end, the power of the government rests in Congress. You're right that in an ideal world, the three branches should be equally weak (or equally strong, if you want to look at it that way), but it's just not possible the way our government was designed.
The President, making speeches to the gay community as a candidate, and now as President, should really be looked upon as the leader of his political party, because that's the hat he's wearing when he makes those speeches, even though nobody really differentiates between the two hats anymore. He invariably talks about asking Congress to pass laws and appropriate funds and whatnot; things that he technically can't do as President, but as leader of the Democratic Party, you bet he can. So when I say that the President has no power to legislate, but he does anyways, that how he goes about doing it. It's a bit of a backdoor [no pun intended] way of getting your message to Congress, but it seems to have become the norm in the last century.
Far as the Agency Bureau Branch is concerned, not really sure where you got that term, but if you're referring to independent governmental agencies like the CIA, EPA, FEC, FCC, GSA, NASA, NARA, NSF, OPM, SSS, SSA, FERT, and pretty much any other three-letter or four-letter acronym you can imagine, yeah you're absolutely right that they do exert far more influence over all three Constitutionally outlined branches than they ought to, but that has more to do with the overweight nature of the government, and the inability of groups with lots of power to relinquish that power, and less to do with the ability of the President and Congress to legislate and enforce.
Also, if you think those supermajorities in Congress are friendly with the President....read what they're saying about each other to the media. The only thing worse than an perfectly evenly-split House or Senate is one with a supermajority; they have unchecked power, so they spend all their time arguing particulars, trying to get their once-in-a-lifetime agendas passed, attaching riders to every bill that breathes, and as a result never get anything substantial done. It's why this health care thing hasn't passed, its why DADT is still being debated on the steps of the Capitol instead of in the chambers of the House and Senate. Too bad for us Average Joes out here who have to wait and watch on C-SPAN.
Someone tell me if my posts are turning too long a la Random8145...I'll trim the fat off of 'em...
