> But it is only the Senate that approves appointments and his party has controlled it the entire time he has been President. This is irrelevant, since the min

> But it is only the Senate that approves appointments and his party has controlled it the entire time he has been President. This is irrelevant, since the minority party can filibuster any nominations, and they have used done so extensively throughout Obama's tenure. In this regard, the party with the majority simply does not matter. > The President is the Commander in Chief of the military. He exercises complete authority over them. Again, I believe that this is an overly simplistic view of the Presidency. There are political realities around what Presidents can and cannot realistically do that contradict the "ultimate power" view of the Executive branch. > All the heads of the other agencies you listed are appointed by the President including the Federal Reserve. With Senate approval, and where no filibusters have been threatened or executed. And remember, there have been more filibusters during Obama's tenure than at any other time in history. > The fact is the President does have substantial power and saying otherwise is merely attempting to excuse the performance of Obama that so many people are disappointed with. Not at all. I am disappointed in the American government itself. I have never voted for Obama, and am merely stating my thoughts as an amateur observer. But if there is ever going to be any positive change in limiting Federal power viz. the military, intelligence agencies, or LEO, then clarity of causality is important.