Titus likes unconstitutional behavior

Ex Congresswoman Dina Titus, who was elected to Congress in the democratic landslide in 2008 and ushered out in the 2010 republican revival, is running for Congress again, this time she moved to a more “friendly” district. She is trying to keep a democrat in the seat that Shelley Berkeley held for seven terms. Shelley Berkeley is running for the Senate against Dean Heller, who replaced former Senator Ensign, who resigned before the expiration of his term. Now don’t get me wrong, Titus did not come out calling for the impeachment of President Obama, she would never do that, she voted in step with the progressive agenda of Obama during her term in the House, but she did point out the unconstitutional actions taken by President Obama. She did point out that Obama is violating his Oath of Office by overstepping his constitutional authority. In an interview with the Las Vegas Review Journal’s editorial board, Titus said, Obama expanding executive authority was a dangerous trend and that not only the executive branch but the other two were overstepping their constitutional authority. Of course she voted for congressional overreaches of power like the Obamacare bill. Dina Titus also supported the unconstitutional actions by the President by blaming his actions on Congress’s inability to act. Of course the implication is on the republicans in the House, but you cannot overlook the democratic controlled Senate’s inability to act, like not passing in a budget for over three years. What I find frightening is that Dina Titus is a political science teacher at UNLV. I never took a class taught by Titus, but if she teaches like she governed in the House, students are getting a warped view of the Constitution. She constantly voted for bills that overstepped constitutional authority and now she is supporting executive branch overstepping of constitutional authority. As a political science instructor, I would think she would understand the nature of the government and its limited nature. I would think she would understand our system of checks and balances. I would think she would understand how the government works and why it was designed the way it was. Most importantly, I would expect her to understand that frustration is not a reason to violate your oath of office, violate the Constitution and continue to add to what she called a systemic problem.