They can fix it.

Power We Didn't Grant
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122201101.html

On the evening of Sept. 12, 2001, the White House proposed that Congress authorize the use of military force to "deter and pre-empt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States." Believing the scope of this language was too broad and ill defined, Congress chose instead, on Sept. 14, to authorize "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons (the president) determines planned, authorized, committed or aided" the attacks of Sept. 11. With this language, Congress denied the president the more expansive authority he sought and insisted that his authority be used specifically against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Just before the Senate acted on this compromise resolution, the White House sought one last change. Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words "in the United States and" after "appropriate force" in the agreed-upon text. This last-minute change would have given the president broad authority to exercise expansive powers not just overseas -- where we all understood he wanted authority to act -- but right here in the United States, potentially against American citizens. I could see no justification for Congress to accede to this extraordinary request for additional authority. I refused.

Why do we even bother with the charade of representative government and the mirage of a system of laws?

The laws work great when it involves putting black kids in prison for having a bag of dope. But they don't seem to work on Wall Street, and they most certainly have no influence over the NSA.

It no longer represents us, though.

is right up there with these bozos claiming there wasn't a military coup in Egypt.

It wasn't bad enough that Obama decided to carry on the worst Bush policies. Now he seems to be channeling Richard Nixon with this new wave of doublespeak.

What happened to our Obama?

There's your problem right there. He was never "ours."

"Democratic mass parties are bureaucratically organized under the leadership of party officials, professional party and trade union secretaries, etc.... Of course, one must remember that the term 'democratization' can be misleading. The demos itself, in the sense of an inarticulate mass, never 'governs' larger associations; rather it is governed, and its existence only changes the way in which the executive leaders are selected and the measure of influence which the demos, or better, which social circles from its midst are able to exert upon the content and the direction of administration activities by supplementing what is called 'public opinion.' 'Democratization,' in the sense here intended, does not necessarily mean an increasingly active share of the governed in the authority of the social structure. This may be the result of democratization, but it is not necessarily the case.... The most decisive thing here- and indeed it is rather exclusively so- is the leveling of the governed in opposition to the ruling and bureaucratically articulated groups, which in turn may occupy a quite autocratic position, both in fact and form." -Max Weber

He didn't change; you're simply seeing things as they really are.

And while there's a few morons, there's plenty of non-morons. And they have far more power than Obama.

Oh wait....that gets in the way of the "Obama is an evil dictator" theme. Sorry 'bout that.

Do you play chess? I'll trade you a guy on a horse for your woman piece. A guy on a horse is surely more powerful than some old dame on foot, right?

I'm sorry that our actual government doesn't fit your preconceptions.

Congress gets to make the laws, and has absolute control over spending.
The judiciary gets to interpret those laws.
The executive branch gets to implement what the other two branches say, and foreign policy.

Grade school classes may describe them as "co-equal", but that's just another thing that grade schools oversimplify.

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson

The reality is:
Congress makes the laws and has absolute control over spending.
The judiciary gets to interpret those laws
The executive gets to do what the other two branches tell it to do, and foreign policy.

Post as many quotes as you like, but it doesn't change that reality. Especially quotes from the founders, who were busting their asses to sell this new form of government to people who wanted a monarchy.

Words ARE important.

If you had said that things have changed in 240 years such that reality no longer matches the founders' ideal, I would agree in general, but possibly not specific to "Co-equal"

The parts of government that have ascended are not the ones you mentioned. The SCOTUS is supposed to exist under the rules defined by Congress, but in fact SCOTUS has become the most powerful part of the Constitutional government. But the bigger problems are the Fed and the NSA, which are completely out of any governmental control, and in many respects more powerful than any of the "co-equal" branches.

I'm talking about the actual Constitution. That actual document makes the Executive branch the weakest of the 3 branches. And always has.

and spending months investigating Benghazi and IRS, maybe they could have put a stop to it.

see who could cry terrorism the loudest and set a forum to hate another group of the "others."

Seems to sum up the relationship between congress and our intelligence community pretty well. Gives them deniability if things go badly. And they can pretend to be outraged when the direction of public sentiment becomes clear.

See how many Repubs you can get to agree with you to re-visit and clarify the authority they want the NSA to hold?