No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand off as the coequal branch the Constitution made it.

You know, in the oath that brand-new citizens take, it contains six different references to 'the law.' If it's good enough for us to ask brand-new citizens to affirm their devotion to the law, is it too much to ask that the president do the same?

I am not surprised that the president of the United States called this a phony scandal. I'm not surprised Secretary Clinton asked, "What difference does it make?" I'm not even surprised that Jay Carney said Benghazi happened a long time ago. I'm just surprised at how many people bought it.

There's a reason that students don't grade their own papers. There's a reason defendants don't sentence themselves. And there's the reason the State Department doesn't get to investigate itself, determine whether or not it made errors in Benghazi. That is Congress's job.

What do we do with a president who can basically change what Congress passed by attaching a letter saying I don't agree with this part or that part?

Well, I certainly hope the Democrats participate. I continue to think that some things transcend politics like the murder of four of our fellow citizens and whether or not you trust government. That is not a red or blue issue. That is an American issue. As for whether or not they boycott, I hope they don't.

If a president can change some laws, can he change ALL laws? Can he change election laws? Can he change discrimination laws? Are there any laws, under your theory, that he actually HAS to enforce?