“Fusion of powers” has periodically been considered by people dissatisfied with “divided government,” which was exemplified by liberal and Democratic frustration with having a Republican in the White House in the 1980s who wasn't acting as if he were another of the Congressional Democrats.

Such “fusion of powers” was addressed, for example, in Sundquist's work.

[Note: "Fostering Inter[-B]ranch Collaboration”: “Modifying the Separation of Powers”]

http://books.google.com/books?id=K7yvhNxY0DkC&d…

Concern about FDR's overreach (the motive for the original edition of the book) and later, about the Watergate affair with Nixon (the motive for a new edition and new remarks in the book) led to the writing of a book advocating a change to a parliamentary system of government:

http://www.amazon.com/new-Constitution-now-Henr…

What's hurting Obama separately and additionally is that he is siding with these people, as well as being subject to tarnishing of the embarrassment and disgrace related to the Van Jones exposure.

I'd like to see reform that, ironically, the farthest lefties are often the ones who want — partition (break up, fracture) the two major parties and create a system with four to six or more parties instead, with proportional representation in multi-seat bodies, where this is appropriate. Accompany that with the kinds of “mechanical” constitutional reforms like revising terms in federal office, term limits, etc., and we'd be in much better shape than we are in now.

I don't have faith in many to be able to handle the bigger, more modernist tasks like reorganizing and reconstituting the states (including defining what they are, what sovereignty if any they would have, selecting physical or natural as well as political boundaries metro-area orientation as well as possible metro area unification), and so on.

* * *

“So what about the right saying 'no government involvement no public option no trigger no nothing or bust buddy'”

What has actually been said is the obvious(!) truth, that reforms don't require an expansion of federal health care, in fact are completely separate from the former (which is what the Dems want, not “reform” [sic]).

“There are options between “government in it even deeper” and “nothing”.”

Note that the pair of choices you list, the false dichotomy that only fools proponents, is not the choice we currently face, though obviously there is no obligation to Do Something, Anything.

“Do nothing” and “status quo” by themselves also have been routine false charges accompanying those with concerns about what the Dems have been doing (about more than just health care). The extent and rapidity of change (and shifting of Washington well left of the mainstream) is at the heart of all the issues this year.

It only is gratuitous (but merits mention here) that adults already know “change” is not the same as “improvement,” by definition.

* * *

“if an industry – especially one that already is the beneficiary of substantial government subsidies – isn't working we don't have some moral obligation to preserve it in perpetuity even if it results in short term pain”

Tell that to the people in Washington who paid off the UAW and propped up GM and Chrysler if not also viewed them as their “Green” toy boxes, and now we learn (unsurprisingly) that they are unlikely to repay all the money of ours that was given to them. It only adds to intelligent wariness about what Washington wants this year so far.

One of my issues with the Obama/Biden team going into the election was that they voted 96% and 97% with their own party and I felt they would have trouble standing up to a Congress led by the progressive wing of the democratic party. it turned out that my concern was merited.

As for waiting for justice, equality and social welfare, I guess I'm old fashioned enough to believe in the maxim that “justice delayed is justice denied”.

But, I'm getting off point. You are correct that Congress writes legislation constitutionally. Our nuanced difference is that I believe there is a role for the president to get involved by stating a policy preference, twisting arms and making deals to get it done. LBJ's sheparding of the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act are great examples. He insisted that the bills go through the Senate Commerce Committee, peopled by liberals who would get it to the floor for a vote, rather than through the “proper” committee (forget which one) where an anti-civil-rights chairman would have buried it.

We do not need to usurp the legislative function, but we also should not deny the leadership role of the president in pushing legislation forward. My view. Btw, I would agree that Jefferson (Louisiana Purchase), Lincoln (Emancipation Proclamation), FDR (Court stacking scheme to intimidate the Supreme Court) technically exceeded constitutional authority though to good effect, as did President Nixon, President Cheney – er Bush, and Andrew Jackson all to bad effect.

But the thing is, and as a capitalist I know you'll appreciate this, if an industry – especially one that already is the beneficiary of substantial government subsidies – isn't working we don't have some moral obligation to preserve it in perpetuity even if it results in short term pain.

Beyond that, big government is here to stay, along with the Imperial Presidency, and corruption in whichever party is currently in power. The only way I see to even begin touching those issues is a Third Constitutional Convention or another Civil War which I don't think will happen in my lifetime.

Nah, on second thought, let's continue the debate…example: Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation by Presidential fiat. By your theory, shouldn't that have been an act of Congress, written by legislators? Hint. If you get by that one, my next examples will include FDR, JFK and LBJ.

I don't disagree with what many of these great leaders did, just how they did it. I think we would have gotten there legislatively, it just would have taken longer. However, once we got there legislatively, it would have been a lot less controversial and there would be less blow back. You may argue that this would mean a longer period of injustice and you would be right. However, what is so special about America and so enduring is our process (as outlined in the Constitution). It is about working to get consensus from the majority. Winning at all costs quickly just poisons the system. You get resentments that last for generations. Think about it. The bad behavior by Republicans over the last several years means an entire younger generation views them as inherently untrustworthy. We can't have tit for tat politics. It is bad for this country. I would rather have delayed justice than endorse tactics that further tear us apart.

As a personal note, I am a lesbian. So, when I say I would rather have delayed justice, I am speaking as someone who has experienced plenty of injustice. The thing is this, my side is winning the culture because all we are asking for is justice. I am patient. The military will stop kicking out gay soldiers. I will be legally married. This will all happen in my lifetime in my conservative state by majority consensus. Already, I am out and open and well liked at work. I wouldn't have dreamed of that 20 years ago.

I still think “dismantle” is the proper term. Handing our grandparents off to the private insurance industry wolves doesn't solve any problems in terms of costs, unless you're ready for onerous regulations or reduced subsidies. And handing off Social Security to Wall Street would have destroyed it if we went through another stock market crash like we just went through.

was actually what I meant to write. And I'm not surprised that you'd support this, but I'm sure you know that Obama and most of the Congressional Dems who've participated in the public option bills will deny that this is their goal.

As for the rest, those are strictly your opinions about where the policies would lead. That would be like me claiming that the current Dem platform is to dismantle the private healthcare industry. It may be my opinion that that's what they're after, and I can support that with some fact, but other people can connect the dots in different ways.

As for the GOP platform:
Republicans have recently voted for a budget which would destroy Medicare as we know it, and have long said it was a bad idea to begin with.
George W. wanted to “privatize” aka gamble away Social Security by giving it to Wall Street.
Republicans have long called for the creation of school vouchers to facilitate the move from public to private schools financed by tax payers.

Please show your work on the assertion that the GOP platform has endorsed dismantling of Medicare, SS, and public schools.