This is a huge problem on every level of government, and we have no recourse to stop the abuse.  Both parties want to keep these agency heads in power, and growing the government fiefdoms, and control.

We actually do have recourse, what we don't have are politicians with the will to do anything about it since it will likely affect their power.

A better idea is to seriously question our "need" to do something. It's funny how some conservatives want to limit the federal government and put more power in the hands of the states... except with regard to the military.

The Constitution specifically calls for the military. Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 12 and 13.

It's time we worried about the defense of America and not so much the defense of foreign countries. If we did that, our military budget would be more than enough.

Given how globalized the world is, sometimes defending the U.S. means doing so on foreign soil. I would much rather fight there than here.

In 2008 I don't think it would have mattered who the Republicans nominated, it was pretty much an anti-Bush year. I'm starting to think that 2016 is going to be the same but for President Obama this time. Most people believe that the country isn't better off now than it was 8 years ago and it doesn't help that the Democrats are still blaming Bush for everything. Hillary isn't as popular as she would like to think she is and she has a lot of baggage that she can't seem to get rid of.

That is why we don't just have just one justice.  I like that we have liberals on the court too.  As long as they all are very, very loath to override previous precedents and make their decisions as narrow as possible.

Except that's not what they do. They make rulings that have consequences for everyone and they aren't always the right decisions.

The Constitution is the basis for law in this country. It's also more than that as it doesn't grant rights but rather places limits on the government. You know, that whole "for the people, by the people" concept. There are so many issues that don't need to be at the federal level yet we have political candidates on both sides running around talking about how they'll fix issue X or issue Y when it's a state issue. Cruz, as far as I'm aware, is the only one who's said that certain issues are states issues when asked about them.

I think you are asking the question all wrong. By you asking that question, I have to assume you are just fine with a percentage of the American populace being poor. I'm guessing you look at it as just the natural order of things. So given this, I have to ask-

• How large should the population of the poor be?
• Is there a point at which they become too large?
• What part do the poor play in the bigger American society?
• Are the poor a help, a hinderance, or do they just not even matter either way?
• Would the country as a whole, be better off if there were much fewer poor, worse off with fewer poor, or it just doesn't matter?

So I believe the better question is, is there a net benefit to the whole of American society if there are fewer poor among us? I believe there is and I believe there is value in trying to achieve this. It's not a responsibility to help poor people move up, it's a project, like building a dam, or a highway. It's for the betterment of all.

You may disagree with me on this, millions around the world do. In many other countries, poverty is just believed to be part of the natural order and little if any effort is given to aiding those born into poverty. I just disagree with this notion.

No, I asked the question the way I wanted to ask it. Your assumptions are also false.

It is not the responsibility of anybody (including the government) to lift people up. It is up to the individual to do that themselves. Children born into a poor family may be poor as children but they don't have to remain that way their entire lives. This is where equal opportunity vs. equal outcomes comes into play. Liberals believe in equal outcomes. In other words, we should lift the poor up into the middle class so they can have a chance at bettering themselves because they're on the same level as everyone else. Conservatives believe that this country provides equal opportunities, not equal outcomes. Everyone has the opportunity to make themselves and their families better and it is their responsibility to do so. Failure to do so is not the fault of government, but your own. Poor people who make poor decisions will remain poor.

Personally, I would find it embarrassing, as a man, if I could not provide for my family. I would resist signing up for welfare as much as possible. I would work as many jobs as needed, as many hours as needed, to provide for my family. If it came down to my family starving or me signing up for welfare, I would sign up to ensure they were able to eat, but as soon as I was able, I would be back off of it. Welfare was meant as a stop-gap measure to provide assistance to those who need it most, not as a means to maintain a lifestyle because you're too lazy or don't care enough to get a job. After all, why should you? The government will take care of you, so there's no need for you to do it.

It's about personal responsibility and the choices you make in life.

Executive Order is to give Cabinet level minions implementation guidance and marching orders. The President doesn't change law; the Office lacks Constitutional Authority.

I'm glad to see that you're opposed to the President's executive actions on numerous issues, to include making changes to Obamacare and illegal immigration.

I saw something awhile back showing the number of EOs that Obama has written and the number was less than that of preceding Presidents. I never took time to validate it, so I can't speak to the veracity of it, but I do find it funny how people continually complain about the government we have (pot meet kettle comments notwithstanding) yet sit on vertically mounted idle thumbs.

It's not a matter of how many executive orders are written and signed, it matters more what is contained within those executive orders.

The video won't load for me.

Nevertheless I know the sentiment of this audience is that states retain authorities  over criminal proceedings. But the senator makes a valid point:  The states have proven themselves incapable of dispensing justice fairly and adequately and with so-called blindness.

Prove it.