“Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

When Francis Bellamy wrote these famous words in 1892, he was undoubtedly inspired by the events of 30 years prior — the American Civil War, a war in which brothers killed brothers and the United States’ future unity became a blood-splattered question. Bellamy was one of many to witness firsthand the gross atrocities that resulted from an irreconcilably divided America.

But even Bellamy could never have expected that someday his words, written in the faith that America’s greatest test was over, would be tested by another divided generation of Americans. Never would he have suspected that one day Congress would cheer on a president as he spoke fervently against the very system of checks and balances that defends the fundamental backbone of American society: liberty and justice. They are among our nation’s most defining attributes, and quite frankly, I’m both baffled and terrified by the overall lack of response produced by the president’s schismatic speech, which offended both the notions of American liberty and justice.

“Indivisible,” Bellamy wrote. Hundreds of thousands died upholding this ideal in his time alone. Truly, are we any better off today? Are we any less divided? In most circles, is it not taboo to contradict certain points of view — try to deny global warming in Madison, I dare you — and can you do so successfully without being told to sit down and shut up?

If only each instance reaped a penny.

In his State of the Union address, did the president not depict and emphasize equally embittering disparities to those Bellamy knew that he, President Barack Obama, perceives in American society? Did he not word his phrases so as to divide American society into categories of the guilty and the offended, and then declare his intention to use these disparities as justification for the independent actions he plans to take?

For instance, did he not speak of income inequality in such a way that both high and low wages seem akin to sins in dire need of reconciliation? And does this not create a schism between the upper and lower classes that the president can condemn and manipulate at his will?

I am not out to slander the president. But I cannot and will not hide the degree to which his State of the Union address disturbed my conscience. While watching, I found myself in the company of friends, and it bothered every nerve within me when the following failed to get a response from any in my company:

“America does not stand still, and neither will I. So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do.”

Congress applauded wildly. Yes, even though it’s a promise to disregard the conscience of the American people through their elected representatives. Even though it is the power of Congress that will be undermined. In what scenario does a Constitution-loving American rejoice in a statement of this caliber?

It doesn’t matter whether Congress or you or I agree with the president’s intended policies. His claim to the right to implement his own policies without the legislative process is simply and outrageously assumptive. Yes, I understand that executive orders are not a new concept. But this is the president clearly stating, as he has before, that when he deems it necessary, he will personally enforce the changes that he sees fit. This language is dictatorial. Furthermore, it’s also incredibly divisive. The president is comfortable in declaring his willingness to forego the bureaucratic process, implying that such behavior is appropriate. This, in turn, implies that any opposition to his “year of action” is an attack on the suffering American families he argues his actions are geared toward.

We have a system of checks and balances for a reason. Whether you approve of the president’s action or not, you’re an American, an American whose government is built on the assumption that mankind is covetous and power-hungry. In his very State of the Union address, our president vowed to disregard this.

Forgive me if I lament that this week I only heard complaints and aggressive comments about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and some cars on a bridge that neither collapsed nor exploded. Because once upon a time, Americans — even the immortal-minded youth — understood on principle that there is danger in any one branch overreaching the limits set on its power. At some point in the past, the majority of Americans could and would have responded to such a statement as the president’s without experiencing whiplash from this new, wrathful 21st century schism.

Theresa Cooley ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in English.