Fair enough...

I apologize for the crass and sarcastic manner in which I must have phrased my last post.  I was trying to be ironic, not sarcastic.

That being said, I defend my position, if not my actual words.

"I was convinced it was but one bellicose general, bearing his short sword in his teeth, that braved the cold waters and set Rome on a course for Empire."

First of all... that was some damn fine rebuttal right there.  Touche!  However, I was not insinuating that you thought Caesar did it all... I was pointing out that Caesar instigated the civil war by marching an army into territory where it was forbidden to march, with the sole purpose of overthrowing the existing and established order.  In short, a coup d'etat.  He did this knowingly and with intent, fully understanding what would result from his actions.  I simply don't think the comparison is accurate.

Obama, even if he is trying to subvert the established order by usurping more authority than the Constitution gives his office, has not knowingly acted in a manner that would start a civil war.  I'm still not convinced that the policy or legislation can even stand up to today's very liberal Supreme Court... as you said, it is a clear infringement on (if not violation of) nearly every aspect of our personal freedoms and liberties as defined in the founding documents.

States like South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Virginia seizing and occupying Federal forts and harbors prior to April of 1861 is EXACTLY the sort of action your analogy describes:  clear and thoughtfully planned acts that have no possible alternative result other than civil war.  Some would argue that Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops to "maintain the Union" did the same thing, but none of those troops (even if they had been on hand at the time, which they weren't) were encroaching on State lands (literally, the lands then claimed by the Confederacy)... so I don't agree.

Lincoln's arrest and detention of most of the Maryland legislature and the Mayor of Baltimore without charge or trial for more than 4 years IS a good example of what I am talking about.  They remained detained at his direction until the end of hostilities... and the act was later determined by the SCotUS to be un-Constitutional, but it did not impede Lincoln during the crisis.

Andrew Jackson's actions in utilizing Federal troops to forcibly remove Indians from their legally ratified and recognized reservations in Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina (and later Florida and Mississippi) was also determined to be "wrong"... but was justified by the then President as needed and necessary, and was NOT seen as something that could be allowed to remain a permanent part of Executive authority.

These were all actions taken against recognized US citizens, their property and their rights as defined by the Constitution.  I don't mean "recognized now" either... people understood these individuals to be US CITIZENS, but that was inconvenient to the established authority and it was ignored by the White House and other elected leaders.  Whatever the reasoning, it was (or is now) recognized that this was WRONG, and it was corrected or guarded against in the future.

Look, perhaps my saying that "every President since Washington" was trying to do what Obama was doing was taking it too far.  What I meant by that was that every President since Washington (and I include Washington in this) has looked to expand, or at least redefine, the Powers allocated and allowed to the Executive Branch of Government.  Few have succeeded, but some have, and some have only to have their efforts reversed later by calmer and wiser heads.

I simply cannot believe that this legislation will survive even minutes of debate between the Justices, should it ever reach the Supreme Court.  If "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is un-Constitutional... how can this be?