Nobody ever said that we didn't want 3 co-equal branches of government.
You are being completely disingenuous when you try to spin us wanting Obama to put some political pressure on Congress for certain policies as a "dictatorship." The executive does not need to just bend constantly to the legislative branch to keep us from being a dictatorship.
And I think you realize how stupid you sound by now, but you are just too stubborn to admit it.
Ok, I guess I have to spell it out for you explicitly.
The president strongly arguing for something and threatening a veto if he doesn't get it is NOT a "dictatorship" if Congress can just say no.
You already stipulated that Congress can tell the president to "go fuck himself". Therefore, it is NOT a dictatorship no matter how forcefully the president argues for the policy he wants, and threatening the legal use of his veto power is the antithesis of a dictatorship.
Basically, the Bill of Rights only applies to the Federal Government, not the states.
However, the 14th Amendment supplies a mechanism whereby "fundamental rights", such as many in the Bill of Rights, can be applied to restrict state power.
The Supreme Court long ago rejected the idea that all of the Bill of Rights is "incorporated" to the states through the 14th Amendment. Instead the Court has declared rights, one by one, to be "fundamental" and therefore incorporated to the states under the 14th. Some justices argued for jsut doing it all at once, but they lost.
As of the current time, most of the Bill of Rights has been applied to the states by the Court. However, a few have not, including the 2nd Amendment. There are a few others (states don't have to give you the right to a grand jury int he 5th Amendment, for instance.
So, until the Supreme Court rules that the 2nd is incorporated to the states through the 14th, only the Federal Government is restricted form infringing on the right to bear arms.
wrong. the Court decided a long time ago that Congress can pass legislation that interferes with private contracts.
in fact, pretty much anything congress passes has at least the potential of interfering with private contracts.
now, it would excuse the AIG employees of their further obligations, and they would be entitled for "fair" compensation for services already rendered. but Congress certainly can interfere with contracts.
"(f) Private contracts must be understood as having been made subject to the possible exercise of the rightful authority of the Government, and their impairment, resulting from such exercise, is not a taking of private property for public use without compensation, or a deprivation of it without due process of law. Pp. 294 U. S. 304-305."