Back in 1989, just before H.W.Bush picked him to be his Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney had an essay published by the American Enterprise Institute under his name, though it may have been written in whole or in part by one Michael J. Malbin, an academic. In other words, the perspective in the essay was perhaps not entirely his own.

In any case, although the essay, entitled "Congressional Overreaching in Foreign Policy," seems to be focused on just one aspect of the relationship between the executive and the legislative branch, there's a characterization of the role of Congress that's telling, in light of what has happened since.

Cheney opines:

Broadly speaking, the Congress was intended to be a collective, deliberative body. When working at its best, it would slow down decisions, improve their substantive content, subject them to compromise, and help build a consensus behind general rules before they were to be applied to the citizenry.

Note that final phrase, "rules ...that were to be applied to the citizenry." There you have it--the essence of authoritarian rule in which citizens are subjects to be told what to do.

So, when John Lynch is concerned about not telling religious entities what to do, isn't he simply granting an exemption from his general attitude that the behavior of the citizenry is his to direct?

Frankly, if people are convinced that the purpose of public officials is to tell them what to do, I don't blame them for being resentful. How do we convince them that the people are in charge?