When we think of these bills we simply must think about Clinton, Lanny Davis, Anne Lewis, James Carville, Vernon Jordan, Monica Blewhimsky, Reno, Web Hubble, Hillary Clinton...
It is also advisable to think of the FBI and BATF. We've already seen what they are capable of. Imagine them on steroids with these new laws. It was scarey enough before these laws.
Consider the plight of the homeowner: in the winter it gets mighty cold and so he brings fire into his house to warm his abode. However, uncontrolled fire in the middle of one's living or family room is downright dangerous (not merely destroying a homeowner's domicile but kill him outright). Therefore the wise homeowner builds a fireplace, to contain the power of the fire, a hearth to distribute the heat of the fire, and a chimney to provide channel the noxious byproducts of fire away from the homeowner.
And so it is with citizenry and its government. Governement exists by the mutual consent of those willing to be governed by it. Congress can make any law it chooses, the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator (from which there is no appeal), whether or not Congress is usurping power not delegated to it by the People (through the Constitution). The executive branch can only carry out the laws that it is delegated to enforce. Congress can make the executive and judicial branches as strong or weak according to its choosing (and at its peril also), within the confines of the document that give it authority to do so. And herein lies the beauty of that: Congress itself serves at the will of the people.
The biggest problem that I see in this regard is that the separate and several sovereign States are substantially weaker because their distinct representation has been abrogated through popular election of the Senate. This was never intended to be the case by the founders. This in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing, if the State's interests with respect to any arbitrary Senator at election time was made clear to the electorate, and were allowed to vigorously campaign for specific Senatorial candidates.
The peoples voice is in the House, the States voice is in the Senate. But the peoples interest lies localy, and within their own district of residence. If the States legislating bodies elect Senators who they feel will promote the State's interests in Congress, then indirectly the people have a voice in the matter by electing to their respective state legislatures candidates whom they believe will send to Washington Senators who ultimately should be looking out for their State's best interests (and indirectly the interests of the State citizenry). As such, the State has a vested interest precisely in those two Senators will be representing the whole state in Congress (and not just pandering to the largest population center in the State).
With respect to legislation, Congress can pass a law in 48 hours if they really wanted to. If there was such an egregious abuse of power by either the judiciary or the executive branch to warrant it, there'd be such a hullaballoo from Congress' constituancy they'd move and they'd move quickly. Because there's nothing that motivates a Congresscritter more than the fear of being voted out of office.
In the grand scheme of things, its just like most parents behave with their children. If the kids act up, the parents instill Draconian measures like stren rebuke, pulling an ear, or hair, inflicting some pain with a slap or spanking, or curtailing of freedom and perhaps outright revokation of things. Over time, and if the children behave, the parents lighten up and the kids may end up with even more freedoms than before. On the other hand, if the kids show they can't be trusted about anything, the parents are going to respond harshly. And so I believe it is with our government. Ultimately, whatever happens is the peoples fault, and the government they get is the one they deserve.
You are correct.
It is always imperative to consider what the opposition will do with a law.
I'm pretty sure that the idea of being allowed to ignore _all_ laws is in and of itself a bad idea whoever is in office.
Traffic violations? Murder? Drug dealing? Child abuse?
In pursuit of officiaol duties only or just in general.
Maybe I haven't had enough caffeine yet, but it sure looks strange.